•y BEFORE THE HONLBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(S) No. Of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Nand Bharos, S/o Shri Beesau Ram Patel, aged about 52 years, U.D.T., Boys Middle School, Nagri District Dhamtari (C.G.) . VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Tribal and welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Tribal and welfare Department Dhamtari (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION ./""^"^A ^y^ OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHJSR APPROPRIATE WRIT. . .-^'•Til.-'.. ' \. ..I-M^, - •%. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WMT PETmON (S) No. 4021 of2011 Nand Bharos. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Anofher. WRIT PETITION UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSnnjI'ION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, .L Present: Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 26U day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher at Boys Middle School, Nagrti has been transferred to Middle Shool, Ghutkel, Disti-ict Dhamtari. 2. The soie contention of Shri Dewangan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred in violation ofthe Iransfer policy ofthe State as the petitioner has not completed 2% years ofservice at the present place. 3. Qn perosal ofthe transfer policy, it is evident that the requirement ofposting at a particular place for 2 % years is not man<latory but it only provides for posting a person at a partieular place for a maximum period of2 % years and not more than that In the case, aceording to tfae petitioner, the petitioner has been traasferred vvithin a period of one year. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or violation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. ^S?»?S&> •^^ 4. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect fhereof is advisory in eharacter and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, Sc/uth Central Rmbvay, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Other^}. 5. It is a!so well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofGcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as aclnnmstrative exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to mterfere witfa the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mah flde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being m confomuty with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be pemritted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofservice rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a partieular place in view ofpublic ittterest and admimstrative exigency. (See E.P-Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Unian of India and another v. Janardhcm Debanath & another , State ofM.P. and another v. S.SXourav and others andMohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 6. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. '-—^ Satish K. Agnihoti-i Judge . (2007}8SCC 212 2(1974")4SCC3 3 (2004)43cc 245 4(1995)3SCC270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150