Umadas Manikpur v. The State of Chhattisgarh, throu9h

:Umadas Manikpur S/o. Shri Raghunath Manikpuri aged about 53 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwan' at Halka No. 27 Sonabal, Tahsit ',-{•;• Kondagoan , Distt.- Jagdalpur ( C.G.} VERSUS RESPONDENTS

#1. The State of Chhattisgarh, throu9h the Secretary Revenue Department, ^ D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.)

#2. The Collector , Jagdalpur, Distt.- Jagdalpur ( C.G.) WRIT PETCTION UN&ER ARTCCLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition(S) No. 5862 of 2009 PETITIONER Umadas Manikpuri VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & another A;--' WRIT CONSTITUTION OF INJDIA PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 0_F^^THE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sinita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D ER (Oral) (Passed on this 9th day of October, 2009) Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred from the present place of posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 27, Sonabal, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Jagdalpur, whereas he has not completed five years. By the the petitioner has been impugned order dated 1.10.2009, transferred to Patwari Halka No. 6, Badagaon, Tahsil - Baderajpur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being an elected Member of the Patwari Association, is exeinpted from transfer as per clause 11 of the Transfer Policy, 2009. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as inany as 67 looking to the Patwaris have been transferred and posted, administrative exigency and public interest. lu support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/2), the Patwaris, who are wherein it is stated that a list of all working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for their placement. ^

#10. I have heard learned counsel the parties, perused the pleadings and docuraents appended thereto. On perusal of the circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not fmd that there is any restriction from transferring a Patwari before completion of five years. Similariy, clause 11 of the Transfer Policy, 2009 provides that in case of transfer of the office bearer of the eraployees association the instructions issued by the General Administration Department, time to time, should be followed. It is apparent that the petitioner is not an office bearer but he is only an elected Member. Even otherwise, neither the petitioner has mentioned the name of the association nor the year in which he was elected. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that he is an elected member of the Patwari Association, except the selfsame statement. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any executive 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 Government, is rejected. 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 ofTamil Nadu and anotherl, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath 85 another3, State Ahmad v. State ofU.P. SE Others5). So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/2) guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Consdtution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is the circular/policy is mere is concerned, conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others6)

#12. 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 the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed.

#13. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge