(L^ \^]. "7 <D IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS)NO. -9310 / 2009 PETITIONER ^Smt. Sushila Minj W/o Leos Minj, aged about 47 years, working as a Prmcipal at Govemment Higher Secondary School Barion, Blcok Rajpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ' ^ ^•^! ^.<ff(^ ..•••^^>"' 2. ^•y ^:>' ^^•" ^" ^tate ofChhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Block Education Officer Ramchandrapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. <^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR WRIT PETiTlON (S) No. 7310 of 2009 PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS Smt. Sushiia Minj. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITiON UNDER ART1CLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDJA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satteh K.AqnitLQtn, J. IINN. Present: Shri A.N .Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORDERCORAU (Passed on 16th day of December, 2009) By thls petltion, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby the representation of the petitioner for canceliation of the transfer order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/2) transferring the petitioner, working as Principal, from Government Higher Secondary School, Boriyon, District Surguja to Raigarh on the option of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Development, Ralgarh, has been rejected. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition against the aforestated transfer order being W.P. (S) No. 4414/2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, with iiberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities. Accordingiy, the petjtioner made a representation before the rsspondent authorities. The said representation was consldered and rejected vide order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner impugns the said order in this petltion agitating the same grounds which were initialiy raised in W.P.(S) No. 4414/2009, and thesame was dlsmissed as withdrawn. ^7 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto and the impugned order whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. The impugned order seems to be just and proper. The petitioner may not be permitted to raise any other ground vsz. the petitioner is the office bearer of the Chhattisgarh Scheduied Caste and Scheduied Tribe Union, District Surguja. It is also not ciear from perusa! of the documents that the said ground has been raised by the petitioner in her representation to the respondent authorities. 5. !t is weil-settted that transfer is an incidence of service and it is fbr the employer to decide asto where a particuiar officer/employee be posted, keeping in view publlc interest as weil as adminlstratsve exigency. This Court has iirnited jurisdictlon to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved maiafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the ruies and regulations. The petitioner/empioyee cannot be permitted to remain at one piace forever. Under the provisions of service ruies, employer has ail the powers to post an employee at a particuiar piace in view of pubtic interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another', Un'ion offndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothef2, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourav and otlier^ ar^ Mohd. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4). l(1974)43cc3 ' (2004) 4 SCC 245 ^:^^':^^^ ^. 8. ^•- 9. ^ So far as contention ot the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the poiicy of the State Government is concerned, the policies are mere guidelines and not controiled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no iegal right is conferred upon the empioyee. (See: Chief Commercia! Manager, South Centra! Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Other/}. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan PandeyS Other/, heid that "in a matter of transfer of a government empioyee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer iightly, be it at interim stage or finai hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer". Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissibie iegal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Saus'^^9ffl ^w AHiit -:(-1995)3SCC270 4 .(2007) 8 SCC 150 5f2007)8SCC212 6f2009)8SC.C337