COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.(?. W.P.(S) ( /2009 PETETCONER:- / D.C.Biswas v. RESPONDANTS:- l.The Union of India Through Chief secretary Ministry of home affairs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BilASPUR WRJT PETITION (S) N0.5906 OF 2009 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS D.C. Biswas Versus The Union of tndla & Others (Writ petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitutlon of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Arjun Yadav, counsel for the petltioner. Shri Kashsf ShakeeS, standing counseS for ths Unson of Indla.

#4. (Passed on thls 9 day of October, 2009) the sald order, Heard learned counsei for the partles. The petitsoner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 20-7-2009 (Annexure - P/1) whereby he has been transferred from Bhilai to the petitsoner has preferred a Durg. Against petition being W.P. (S) No.3989 of 2009. Th®sam®was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31-7-2009 (Annexure - P/12) with a dsrection to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the authorities were dlrected to decided the same, strict!y in accordance with law, vvithin a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. Pursvant thereto the petitioner made a representation on 3-8-2009 (Annexure - P/13). After consldering the said representation, by a detailed order dated 7-9-2009 (Annexure - P/14) Generai/Pers. rejected the representation offrse petitioner. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition wlthout questioning the iegaJity and vaiidity of the order dated 7-9-2009 passed in representation and chaiienged the iegalifr^ and vaSidity of the Deputy Inspector transfer order dated 20-7-2009, which has already been considered and dlsposed of. The petltioner is not permitted to cha!!enge the order dated 20-7-2009 which has been consldered and dssposed of by this Court sn eariier petltion, particuiarly in view n'7- of the fact that the petitioner has not impugnedl the order datedl 7-9-2CXS9 passed on the representation. Be that as it may, it is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of

#5. servlce and it is for the empioyer to decide asto where a particuiar officer/ empioyee be posted, keeping in view pubilc Interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has Simited jyrisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved maSafide, non-competence of authorifr/ passlng the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/empSoyee cannot be permitled to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of sewice rules, employer has ail the powers to post an empioyee at a partte^ular p!ace in vlew of pubKc interest and adminastrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and sifKfthe^ Shflpi Bose (Mrs.) and offiers y. Siate of Bihar & ano^er^, Unson of indla ancS ano^ier v. Janardhan Debanaff) & ano^e^, S^te of MP. and another v. S.S.Kourv and others4 and Mohd Mascwd Ahmad v. Sfeite of UP. & Offjers5}.

#6. So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the transfer poiicy ss concerned, the transfer policy and circular are mere gusdeiines and not controiled by statutory provisions or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right ss conferred upon the empioyee,

#7. in Chief Commercisl Manager, Soi^h Cerafra/ Railway, Secundembacf & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others8, the Supreme Court observed as under: "20. is wefi settied that the CentraS Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its certain servants circumstances; but that wiii not make such ruies which are instructions statutory !n justiciable in certain drcumstances. how to 11974(4)SCC3 ' (1991)3upp 2 SCC 659 3 (2004) 4 SCC 245 4(1995)3SCC270 5 8 (2007) 8 SCC 150 (2007^ 8 SCC 212 that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either the authority conferred on the Central Government State Government by some statute or under the Constitytion providing therefor. Thsrefore, even ifthere has been any breach of such executive tnstructions that does not confer any right on any member of the pubiic to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india." provisions of

#9. Even otherwise, there is no chaSienge to the Impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warrantlng interference with the impugned transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismjssed at the motion stage itseif. _ Gowri Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge