Dr. Sanjay Kumar Raj vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29-6-2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner, working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Veterinary Hospital, Bakawand District Bastar, has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Makadi, within the same district on administrative grounds.

Ms. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the policy dated 20-10-2005 (Annexure P-3) of the State Government, a person posted in a scheduled area who has not completed five years of service in the place of posting, should not be transferred and after completion of five years in the scheduled area, the employee may be transferred to a place of his choice. The petitioner has not completed five years at the present place of posting, thus the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the State Government.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been transferred within five years to any other place does not merit acceptance. The policy is clear that if a person is posted in scheduled area, he may be kept for five years and thereafter the posting may be given on the choice of the employee. In the present case, the petitioner was posted at Veterinary Hospital, Bakawand, District Bastar on 10-1-2006, thereafter, by the impugned order the petitioner has been posted to other hospital, i.e., Veterinary Hospital, Makadi, on the administrative ground. The petitioner has not been removed from the scheduled area as both the places are in District Bastar.

It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to 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 Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath and Another, , State of Madhya Pradesh, and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others, and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ].

So far as contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy of the State Government is concerned, the policies are 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. [See : The Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others Vs. G. Ratnam and Others, ].

The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Others, , held that "in a matter of transfer of a Government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the Courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer".

Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference.

For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed.