Tokapal, Distt.- Jagdalpur v. The Collector , Jagdalpur, Distt

: Rajesh Tiwari S/o. Shri R. P. Tiwari, aged about 41 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 06 Karanji, Tahsil - Tokapal, Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS ,r^"_

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

#2. The Collector , Jagdalpur, Distt.- Jagdalpur ( C.G.) ''^... PETCTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petltion (S) No. 5865 of2009 PETITIONER Rajesh Tiwari VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnlhotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O RD E R (Oralt (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 posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 6 Karanji, Tahsil Tokapal, District Jagdalpur only two years before. Within a short period of about two years, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been 19, Taragaon, Tahsil - transferred to Patwari Halka No. Lohandiguda.

#3. Learned 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, administrative exigency and public interest. looking to the

#4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Circular 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 I do not circular dated 29.8.2009, find that

#5. ^-•^ restriction from transferring a Patwari before completion of iive years.

#6. Submission of the petitioner is contraiy 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 Governraent, is rejected.

#7. 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 of Tam.il Nadu and another1, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar & another2, Union oflndia and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another3, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.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 concerned, (Annexure P/3) guidelines and not controlled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constita-ition providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is the circular/policy is mere conferred upon the employee. (See Chief Conunerclal Manager,