,t, 11 SlngieBe^^ ^ o^^ IdTZ) / !N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.(S)No. H^l^ ) 2011 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS t ^l..-'^ .^:^- 4^%/ ^^y ^ ^0''"^' ...•;:' ">^\.-""\^ ^'^ \<^ .. ^ Shiv Kumar Sahu , Aged 57 Years S/o Shri Mahatru Sahu Patwari Circle No.8, Village Sikolajahsit & District Durg (C.G.) Versus ^ 1. The State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Collector, DistrictDurg (C.G.) ^ 3. Shri Tiku Ram Sharve Patwari Circle No. 09 Village Devari (Kh) TahsKGunderdehi District Durg (C.G.) (SI.No. 7 transfer Order.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. Petitioner is furnishing particulars of the writ petition as below:- ^ mGHCQUm'QFCMHATTISGARHATBILASPUR PETITIONER WR1T PETmON (S) No. 4817 of2011 Shiv Kumar Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State Govemment of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PEiniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Sattsh K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 23rci day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 08. Sikola Tahsil Durg, has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 09, Devri (Kha) Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, on administrative grounds. 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that tlie petitioner is engaged in Krishi Sangadna work, thus, the ti'ansfer of the petitioner is contrary to the instmctions of the State Govemment. Fmlher, before completion of 2 Vz years at fhe present place of posting, the impugned transfer order has been passed which is contrary to the transfer policy of the State Govemment. 3. llie Krishi Sangadna, Year 2010-11 guidelines (Amiexure P/5), issued by the Director, Land Records are not the statutory mles, sanctioned under the statutory provisions. Thus, it can not curtail the power offhe State Govemment to transfer an employee. Iii the said guidelines, it is provided that as far as possible, the employee engaged in Sangadna work should not be disturbed till the work is over. 4. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any ofher permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory mles or regulations or lack of competence ofttie officer, passing the impugned order. ^ \^^y ^^^..1^^' •)^ Aniit 5. Even othenvise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in chai'acter aiid thereby no legal riglit is confeiTed upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others1). 6. It is also well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interiere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved maki flde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confoimity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee camiot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Underthe provisions ofservice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of publie interest and admmistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of TamU Nadu and anofher2 , Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Koiirc^ and others asidMohd MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 7. lii view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit aiid is accordingly dismissed Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (20Q7)8SCC212 (1974)4SCC3 (2004)43cc245 (1995)33cc270 (2007) 8 SCC 150