Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 364 (CHH)

MAHESH KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-12-04

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 7th October, 2009 (Annexure P/3) whereby the petitioner, working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 09. Tahsil Rajnandgaon has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 19, Aundhi. Tahsil Abhanpur, near border of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Shri Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the wife of the petitioner was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade II at Bhothiparnaya the petitioner made a representation on 25th September, 2009 (Annexure P/2) to the respondent No.2. Shri Kazi further submits that without considering his representation, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 19, village Aundhi. Tahsil Manpur by the impugned order, which according to the petitioner is about 160 K.M. away from his present place of posting. The action of the respondent/State is contrary to the policy of circular dated 25th May, 1995 (Annexure P/7) issued by the General Administration Department. Government of Madhya Pradesh. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the memo dated 29th May. 1995. The policy of the State Government is to place the husband and the wife at a same place as far as possible. It is a mere guideline and is not a statutory rule. It starts with the word 'as far as possible and practicable in the public interest and administrative exigency'. In the said policy, it has been further clarified that no government servant can claim it as a matter of right to be posted at one place. 4. 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 Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Union of India and another Vs. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. (See E.P Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, Union of India and another Vs. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Others4). 5. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the State Government is concerned, the policies are mere guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others Vs. G. Ratnam & Others5). 6. The Supreme Court, in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others6, held that "In a matter of transfer of a government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer". 7. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference. 8. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.