^ •^ 1 ^ 10^-7 ^- @ SJJlft^f? F" i;n.p IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ^?^ 1 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Rekha Yadav Wife of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 40 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Deputy Secretary, Tribal Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). ^" 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur/ District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^>F< HSGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASWR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5971 OF 2009 P_ETITJQNER Smt. Rekha Yadav RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Conslltyljon of tndia) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 1. 2. 3. 5. Shri A. Ghosh, Advocate appears on beh^lf of Shri Ashok Kymar Shukia, counss! forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Pa^sed on this 20B1 day of Qctober, 2009) With the consent of Searned coynseJ appearing for th@ parties, the- petitson is heard finaliy. The pststioner, by this pelltion, Impugns the l^ailty and vaiidity of the order dated 23-9-2009 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Secretary, SC/ST Development Departmeni, 'ln the representation dated 30-8-2009 (Annexure - P/7) filed by the petitioner. Earller the petitioner • has chalSenged the transfer orcier 30-6-20Q9 (Annexure - P/1), whereby the petltioner was transferred from High School, Jamgahna, Block Balkunthpyr, Dlsfrfet Korea to Sarguja, on administrative ground, before this Court by fillng a petltlon belng W.P. (3) No.4359/2009. The said vmt petition ws®dismfesed on 17-8-2009 (Annexure - P/6) as withdrawn writh iiberty to the petitioner to make a representatjon before the authorities. Accordingly, the representation MWQ made on 30-8-2009. After considering the same, the Jmpugned order dated 23-9-2009 was passed by the Secretar^ by rejecting the representation of the petltioner. The maln grounds raised by the petitloner are that the transfer order m contrary to the transfer poiicy of the State Governnnent as well as memo dated 29-5-1995 (Annexure - P/4) issued by the Generd Administation Department ofthe, thers, State of Madhya Pradesh. 1 have heard Jearned counsel appearing for the partles, peryaed the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The transfer poiicy provides thal In norma} course a persor? who has not compteted the period of TA years in a particuiar ptace of posting sliould not be ^ s:.^sm transferred and the memo dated 29-5-1995 provides that as far as possible the husband and wife, jf worklng in the Govemmenl department, should be posted, cn humanitarian ground, at the same pSace. 6. St is a trite ia^ that transfer pojicy Is a nnere gusdeiine aod it Is not enforceabte by way of writ in exercise of wrll jurjsdjction of the High Court. Secondiy ihe period of 214 years is nol mandatory because it is simpiy observed that in normal coorse depending on the reqylrenieot of the Government in administratlve exigency. • The memo 29-5-1995 aiso prescribes that as far as possible keeping In view the sympathetic ground whlJe posting the husband and wife. 7. The Secretary in his order dated 23-9-2009 has considered atl the aspects of the matter and has come to the condusion that the transfer of the petitioner was dGne on fhe basls of administrative exlgenoy. There Is no Jljegaiity or infimnity in the order. The same is just, proper and does not warrant any Interference of this Court. 8. Be that as it may, it is welt-settled that transfer is an inddence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a partJcylar officer/ empioyee be posted, keeping m view pyblic interest as well as admsnistratlve exigency. This Cpurt has llmifed jyrisdlction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved matafide, oon- competence of aulhority passjng the transfer order and not being Jn confonTsity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one piace forever. Under the provislons of service rules, employer has ali the powers to post an employee at a partlcular place in view of pubSlc Interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stete of Tams! Nadti and another1, ShiSpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. Stete of Blhor & anoih^, Union oflndia Qnd anotherv. Janardhan Debanath & another, State of MP. and another v. S.S.Koiifv and others and Mohd. Mssood Ahmad y. State ofU.P. S, Otherss}. 9. In Chief Commercsa! Manager, South Centra! R&iiway, Secund^abad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Othefs€,the Supreme Court oi^erved as under: 11974(4)SCC3 2(1991)Supp2SCC659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4 (1995)33cc 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 6 (2007) 8 SCC 212 10. 11. "20. it te weiS settled that the Centrai Govemment or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act m certain oircom^tences; but that wi}! ncrf make such insiructions statytory ruies which are justidabie in certain circumstances. in order that such execytive instryctions have the •force of statutory rute, it must be.shown that they have been'issued elther under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Governnient by sonie statyte or under some proyissons of the Coiistitution providing therefor. Thersfore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Govemnnent by a petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constjtytion cxf India."' Even other^vlse, there is no chaiienge to the impygned transfer order on any other permissibie iegaS grounds as afor^ated, warrantjng Interference wth the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed at the m©tlon stage itseif. _; Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge