w •l^ ^ ^ ^•^^ ^^<r^i ^e'A- ^^F-\/^T) INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S)No.....^V^£2...........2011 PETITIONER: Ram Mohan Soni S/o Late Bhaggulal Soni, aged 50 years, Designation - Patwari, P.C. No. 20, Katulbod, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS (1) The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) The Collector, Durg (C.G.) Writ petition underArtide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus of writ/direction or any other appropriate writ. ,^":K'els". i.i..- ^X£ iis^ ^'•••—^^ss^^^ ^^ )-'.^ HIGH CXXMT ©FCHHATT^SGARHAT BILASPUR - WMT PETITIQN (S} No. 4136 of 2011 PETTTIQNER RESPONDENTS Ram Mohan Soni. ^:VERSUS,,, •• .':';:;-: .•.':, The State ofChhattisgarh & Andther. WMTPETITIONIJNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHECONSH OFINDIA SB; ffon'ble Shri SatisU K.Agmhotri, J. Presenf: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri A|it Singh^ Panel Lawyer fbr the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) ;^, • ; ; ^ ^(Passed 01129thday ofJuly, 2011) 1. Challerige in tiU^ theorderdated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/I) whereby the pefitioner, working as Patwari at ; Patwari Halka N6. 20, Katulbod, has been transferred to Patwari ' Halka No. 50^ ^ admimstrafive grounds. 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in Krishi Sangadna work, thus, the teansfer 6f the petitioner is: contrary Ao the ipstructions of; the State Govemmenf. Further, _befbre completion pf 2 ^2 years at tlie /: present place of ppsting, the impugned transfer order has been passed which is cqntrary to fhe transfer policy of the State Govomment. " ., ';:'^''.--:;-'':;;."'.;;,;...;•;-"''•;•' ' '.":;•.:.:: 3. The KrishiSasgadna^Year 2010-11 guidelmes(AnnexyreP/2^ ; issued by the Director, Land Records have no statutpry fbrce, as the s^e is irot sanctioned under the statutory provisions, TOus, it ^ can not curtail the pp^ver of the State Govemmertt to transfer an ^ ^ it is pro^dded that as ^ possible, the employee engaged in Sangadn^ work should ntft be ^ disturbedtUl thewbifcisov^^^ ;4. Shri SingU, leamed Pahel Lawyer appearing fcr the State/resppndents submits that the Sangadna work has already heen over. ;• '.•T-^;,.•••":,".' .•:':..,.:'.:'::..'-'. "'-:••. • '. ' •• ,' '-''•'.•'•-^-..••:\:.,•":•••''••- ^ •..: 5. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the policies are mere guidelines and^ npt contrplled by statutory provisioris. The effect ^: Amit; v2 thereof is advisory in character and tihereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief€owmerciaiManager, Soiith Central Ra^^ & Qfhers v. G. Rafnamr& :..;^,::;:l^l:-(?^ers7).^ (•','••'^ . /<.;;;1;^,'':-;..':1^.''11^.1\''';'1';.;^^ 6. The petitioner lias not challeriged the impugned transfer order on any other permi^sible tegal ground i.e. exercise of /^q/^ ^fe or /!; violation pf any sta^ or regulations or laek of competence ofthe ofEicer, passirig the impugned order. 7.ItisweU-s€ttledthattrarisferisanmcidenceo^ fhe emplQyerto decide astowhere a particu^^ posted, keepmg m view publio interest as w^ exigericy. This Court has limi^ transfer matter except^^^^^^^^ of proved ma/a^^ competehceofa|ijthoritypassing^^A^ , confbrmity;wilh ttle mles, and regulations^ The petitioner/employee cannbt be permitted to remain af one place fbrever, Under the provisipns ofservicerules, employer has all fhe powersto postan employee at a particular place in view of public iiiterest and administrative exigency. (See £7?^(y^^^ and cmot^e^^UmonofIridiaanda^ v. Jancn'dhanDebancith^ & ono^er3 l5if^ o^M^ <3n^<^o^er v-^^^^&^ ^ and Moh^^^op^Ahma^v.State ofUP.^^ ; ; 8. In view of the above, the pefition is deyoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, A^ petitioiier is at liberty to makela detailed y^re^ respondent authbrifies, ifsa^^^^^ ^ advised, for|releaseofhissalaryfbr^^^^^^ quo was in qperation. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge .i-!t .^:"..:/.:';'', Y(20Q7)8SCC212 2 (1974)4 $CC 3 3(2p04)4SCC245-; ^(1995) 3 SCC 270 5 (2007)85cc 150