Ramnath Netam v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Netam S/o. Shri Poluram Netam, aged about 39 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwari at HalkaNo. 18 Bagmundi Panera Tahsil - Bastanar, Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS '

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

#2. The Collector , Jagdalpur, Distt.- Jagdalpur ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. l!**.^^. _-- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 5864 of 2009 PETITIONER Ramnath Netam VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh 85 another WRIT CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D ER (Orall (Passed on this 9th day of October, Heard.

#1. 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.

#2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to the present place of posdng i.e. 18 Bagmundi Panera, Tahsil Bastanar, Patwari Halka No. Dista-ict Jagdalpur only three months before. Within a short period of about three months, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 26, Jaitgiri, Tahsil - Farasgaon.

#3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as many as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, adrainistrative exigency and public interest. looking to the

#4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Cireular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/3), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for their placement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the there is any circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that

#5. restriction from transferring a Patwari before completion of five years.

#6. Submission of the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principle of law that if there is any violation of any executive instnictions fhat 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.

#7. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/ eniployee 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-coinpetence 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 administradve exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tam.il Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath 8s another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kaurv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P. & Others5).

#8. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer is contrary to the circular/policy dated 29.8.2009 is cohcerned, the circular/policy is mere (Annexure P/3) guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Coinmerclal Manager,