laT-^. i{i.wo.-—-;^^-5<?^e.-£ ^^^S^'S3^- l..——""r P.B. presen daled. '^^^^ d^ l ^, IN TME HON'BL.E HIGH COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR vc.e.') WRITPETETION (S}NO.S^A6 OF 2009 ' PETITIONER : Anil Mishra S/o. Lata Shn Anant Mishra, 27..- aged about^'years, Occupation - Service,Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 01 Ghatghanora, Tahsil - Tokapal, Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONOENTS : 1. 'The State of Chhattisgarh.through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. BhawanRaipurj(C.6.) 2 The Collector , Jagdalpur, Oistt.- jQgdalpur (C.G.) \VR]aBEfflI®Qia fi»@feAR'T!EgVES2g6QFTMECONSTITUTIQN QFIISIDI^RORISSUEANCEOFAPPROPRIATEWRIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 5866 of 2009 Anil Mishra VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh 8s another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE _226__QFL^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. ORDERfOrall (Passed on this 9th day ofOctober, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging|the order dated I 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to the present place df posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 1 Ghatghanora, Tahsil Tokapal, District Jagdalpur only two years before. Within a short period of aboyt two years, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 3, Jamgaon, Tahsil—Bastanar. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State subinits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as many as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, looking to the administrative exigency and public interest. 4, In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for tfeeir placement. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that there is any .s^^ ^li H^ 'i®' 1 restriction from transferring a Patwari before completion of five years. 6. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any execudve instructions that may not be the ground for interfering with the transfer order. Thus, the aforesaid contention that the transfer order has been passed contrary to the circular/policy issued by the Govemment, is rejected. 7. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, ShUpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar 8s another2, Union oflndia and anotker v. Janardkan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5). 8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3) is concemed, the circular/policy is mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some 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 Conttnercial Manager, ' 1974 (4) SCC 3 2 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 3(2004)4SCC245 4 (1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007) 8 SCC 150 F' * <"; South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam. & Others6) 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 10. For fhe reasons as afore-stated, the petition is disniissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1