.^..^•its^ ^^s§ im£%^ ^ d-at8d- ji-e- f^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS1 No" ^ /" /2009 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS y' Savitri Daryey D/o Shri Kripal Das Darvre, aged about ^Z.years, Patwari Halka No. 26, Loharsi, Tahsil: Pamgarh, Dist: Janjgeer-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 01. State of Chhattisgarh, Through their Principal secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Departments, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^02. Collector, Janjgeer-Chanipa, Janjgeer, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION U/ A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^^3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Wvit_Petitionmm,_697Sor2Q09 PBTITIONER : Savitri Darvey VERSUS .RESPONDBNTS : State of Chliattisgarh S& another WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON^nTUTIOjNLOFIND^EA (SB: Hoa'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri Raj Kaaial Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn A, V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O RD E R (Orall (Passed on this 4th day ofDecember, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 30.9.2009 (Aimexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jaajgir Champa i.e. Respondent No,2, whereby the petitioner has beea traiisferred from Pat^ad Halka No. 26 Loharsi to Pat^ari Halka No. 21 Barganva within TahsU Akaltara. 2. Learned counsel appeadng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a woinan, has been transferred fo a place which is not weU corm.ected by toransport facUities. It is a niid teraa traasfer. The irapugned traasfer order is not sustaiaable as it has been passed ia compUance ofthe order dated 8,9.2009 (Annexure P/2). The iaipugned transfer order is contrary to the traasfer poUcy (Annexure P/3), as the petitioner has been traasferred durmg the ban period, Thus the impugned traasfer niay be quashed. 3. Leai'ned counsel appeanng for the respondents/State submits that by the iuipugned order dated 30.90.2009 as many as 11 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, lookmg to the adininistrative exigeacy, public interest an.d that they were posted at one place for the last more thaa five years. a^ 4. On query, learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner has been posted at Patwan Halka No. 26 Loharsi for the last about ten years. 5. I have heard learaed counsel appearmg for the parties, penised the pleadings aad docuinents appended thereto. It is apparent that by order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P/2)- aU the Collectors of the State were directed to uudertake traasfer of the Patwades, who are posted at one place for the niore than five years. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner lias been posted at Pafr^vad Hatka No. 26 Loharsi for the last about ten years, 6. On perusal ofthe transfer policy dated 9.6,2009 (Annexure P/3) it is evident that as per clause 1 of fhe policy toransfer orders caii be passed from 10th June to 30th June, 2009 aad from 1st July, 2009 there would be a baa on transfer. It further provides that even after ban, traasfer cau be niade as per clause 17 and 18 ofthe poUcy. Sub-clause (5) ofclause 18 offhe poUcy provides that in one city from one ofiice to other office traiisfer caii be laade. The petitioner has been transferred withiu district Jaajgir Champa froni one pat\vari halka to other patwari halka. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the icapugned traasfer is ia violation of the transfer poUcy is inisconceived. 7. Even othenvise, the subraission of the petitioner is contrary to the weU-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any execiitive mstructions that may not be the groiind for uiterfenng with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid conteation that the transfer order has been passed contraiy to the circular/policy issued by the Govemment, is rejected. The circiilar/policy is niere guidelines and not controUed by statutoiy provisions or under sonie provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee, (See Chief Cammerctal Manager^ South Centrcd RaiVweiy^ Seciindcirabeid & Others v. G. Ratneffn 8s Others1) 1 (2007) 8 SCC 212 / x^ 9. 10. Thakur 8. It is weU-settled that traiisfer is aa iacidence of sendce and it is for the eiaployer to decide asto where a particular ofiicer/ einployee be posted/keepiag ia view pubUc interest as well as adraiiilstrative exigency. This Court has Imdted jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer niatter, except ia the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passiag the transfer order aad not being ia confonxdty with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee caiinot be pennitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisioas of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of pubUc uiterest aad adiairdstorative exigency. (See E.P.Royappav. State ofTwnil Nadu andcmother2, ShiJpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another3, Union offndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothef^, State of MR and another v. S.S.Kourv and others5 and Mohd. Masood Ahm.ad v. State ofU.P. Ss Others6). There is no chaUenge to the impugned taransfer order on any other ^rmissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting iaterference with the impugued traasfer order. For fhe reasous as afore-stated, the petition is disinissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 2 1974 (4) SCC 3 3 (1991) Supp 2 SCC 659 4 (2004) 4 SCC 245 5 (1995) 3 SCC 270 6 (2007) 8 SCC 150