^^w l^®-^^ ^. ^^/ ^^y' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (31 N0. 2013 OF 2009 Ku. Joseph Kujur, D/o Shri Johan Kujur, aged about 33 years, R/o village Pussour, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary, Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Department, D.K.S. Bhavran, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. The Director. Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Department, Rajpur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Projeot, Pussour, District Raigarh (CG). 4. Vijay Bareth, S/o Gajanand Bareth, aged about 48 years, R/o village Dumarguda, Tahsil Pussour, District Ralgarh (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. ^nihotri, J. Present: Shri Anand Kesharwanl, counsel forthe petltloner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17m day of April, 2009) With the consent of teamed counse! appearing for the partjes, the petition is heard finaliy. 2) By this petition. the petitioner impugns the order dated 13-2-2009 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner working as /tesistant Grade - III has been transferred from Pusour to Gharghoda. 3) Shri Kesharwani, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the impugned transfer order has been passed by the respondent authorities only to accommodate the respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner and that too during the ban period without obtaining the approval from the Chief Minister, which is against the transfer policy. Except the above, no other grounds have been raised by the learned counsel. 4) Law in case of transfer is well settled that the Court shouid interfere only in those cases wherein there is a complain of mala fide exercise of power, infraction of rules, regutations and competence of the officer concerned passing the impugned order. The petitioner is not alleging any mala fide exercise of power except that this was done only to accommodate respondent No.4. The reasons to establish mala fide are not cogent and sufficient. Mere statement that the order has been passed only to accommodate the -z^ respondent No.4 is not found proved, as by the impugned order some other officers have also been transferred. So far as the administrative exjgency is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter ofjudicial review unl^s the contrary is proved. The petitioner has failed to prove the mala fide. Thus, the jmpugned transfer order is not vitiated on account of mala fide exercise of power. 5) The courts or tribunals, which are appellate authorities should refrain from considering the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. (See State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal1. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. anci others summed up the scope of Interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as under: "7. The sciope of judiciaf review of transfer under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India has been settied by Supreme Court in Rajendra Royv. Unlon oflncffa, Nattona! Hydroelecttic Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shh Bhagwsn, State Bank of India v. Anjan SQnyef. Following the aforesaid principl^ laid down by the Supreme Court, the AISahabacf High Court in Vljay Pal Slngh v. State of U.P. and Onkar Nath Thwari v. Chief Engineer, Minor fningation Deptt. has held that the prindpte of law laid down In the aforesaid decisions is that an order oftransfer is a part ofthe service oonditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of (avv jn exercise of its discretionaryjurisdiction underArticle 226 unless the court finde that either the order te mala fide or that the semce rules prohjbit such transfer, or that the authorltles who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orderc." 7) ApplyinQ the weil settled principl^ of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the mala fide alleged by the petitioner has not been proved and there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on the ground of infraction of rules or non- competence of the officer passing the transfer order. The transfer policy/circular is mere guidelines to be observed by the officers while passing the orders. The transfer polJcy/Gircular is not mandatory in nature and does not attain the status of the service rules. Thus. this petitiQn does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8) Thus, this wit petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. 1 (2004)118cc 402 2 (2007) 8 SCC 150 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge