(^- f y^7^— IN THE HO/BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0:)56 OF 2010 PETITIONER -^.^ 1 cl.'''\r?^ ^i^ v%^' .•w^/\.>" ^'' .^y ^'y..- .^" . ^*9 ^'.^ ^v RESPONDENTS l^ ^ '^ ^ [V-r/ -^^^ ''^'~~<'f€h. \^\ 9\ ^<—^^ fe^^ z.^. Rohani Kant Shrivastava Son of Late A. P. Shrivastava, aged about 48 years, Presently working on the post of Accountant (District Manager), C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Njgam Limited, Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). .•r^'; ./_•;... ...:.,. v.'._:;. .:;.:.._.:......:•:.:. .. ...-.•/.:..•..•: ;.; ^ ._-;.;•.....".•:;•; ..-.:•:. 2. The Managing Director, C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, "Beej Bhawan", Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). €"' 3. The Deputy General Manager, Establishment, C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, "Beej Bhawan'7, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). 4. Rajendra Lakda Son of B. R. Lakda, aged about 34 years, Sale Assistant, (District Manager Dantewada), C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Dantewada, District Bastar (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1568 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rohani Kant Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day ofApril, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 5-4-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Dhamtari to Dantewada. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred three times within a period of three years. The impugned transfer order has been issued against the transfer policy and the same has been passed during the ban period. Normally, an employee is considered for transfer after completion of 2^ years posting at a particular place. Thus, the petitioner is a victim offrequent transfers. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the simple ground that in a catena of decisions it has been held that transfer policy/circular is a mere guideline and it is not enforceable by way of writ in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The transfer policy/circular does not have force of a statute. The transfer order has been passed on the basis of administrative exigency. Frequent transfers means, an employee is transferred frequently on several occasions. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order comes within the ambit of frequent transfers is not well established and not sustainable in law. The petitioner has failed to prove the mala fide and lack of competence of the officer passing the impugned transfer order. Thus, the transfer order is just and proper. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & anothef^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others , 1 1974(4)3cc3 2 (1991)8upp28cc 659 3 (1995)38cc 270 ^s?... Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others4 Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5 and Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6). 6. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 (2007)88cc 150 5 (2007)83cc 212 6 (2009) 8 SCC 337