Smt. Nirmala Shanta Dewangan & Ors. v. State ofTamil Nadzi and anothe^, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanaih & Ors.

Smt. Nirmala Shanta Dewangan W/o shri Harinath Dewangan, aged about 52 years, working as Head Mistress, Government Primary School, Dhanpunji, District Baster-Jagdalpur, ( C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, School Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^"

District Education Officer, Bastar, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '•r-rtss-- -..-.— 'M ^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETmON fS) No. 5999 of2009 PETITIONER Smt. Nirmala Shanta Dewangan. RESPONDENT8 State of Clihattisgarh & Others. VERSUS WRFT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB:HQn?bleShriSatishK.Agmhotn,J. Present: Shri Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy- Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. y ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of October, 2009)

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 30 June, 2009 (Amiexure P/l), whereby the petitioner, who is posted as Head Mistress at Govemment Primary School, Dhanpunji, District Baster, Jagdalpur, has been has been transferred Goveniment Primary School, Mongrapal, Bakawand, on administrative grounds.

2. The grounds for challenge to the impugned transfer order ai'e that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy 2009-2010. Secondly, at tlie present place ofposting, there are 216 students and only four teachers (includmg the petitioner) and the place where the petitioner has been transfeiTed, there are only 87 students and thi'ee teachers. By the impugaed transfer, the studies ofthe students of Primary School, Dhanpunji would be badly affected. Thu'dly, the impugiied transfer order has been passed in tlie niid-session.

I have heai-d leamed counsel for the petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. ^s^^^ .^ t^I It 5 It is well settled fhat transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keepiiig in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. Tliis 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 confonnity with fhe mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of ser^ice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a paiticular place in view ofpublic interest and adniinistrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadzi and anothe^, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanaih & anothe^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others and MoM. MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4). So far as contention ofthe petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy is concerned- the transfer policy is 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.

In Chief Commercial Manager, South Centt'al Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others5, the Supreme Court observed as "20. It is well settled that the Central Govemment or the State Govemment can give administrative instmctions to its servants how to act in certam cii'cunistances; but tliat under: