R.S. Shrivastava vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 22nd September, 2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner as Range Officer, has been transferred form Production Amrawati, Kondagaon to Bande Range, Forest Division West Bhanupratappur, on addministrative gounds.

The grounds for challenge to the impugned transfer orders are that the petitioner has been transferred to a place, where no post is available. Secondly, the petitioner is likely to retire within a period of 17 months and he is not keeping good health. Thirdly, the provisions of transfer policy have not been followed, wherein it is provided that if the employee has less than one year to retire, he may be posted at a place on the option given by the employee.

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

It is well-settled principle of law 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 and 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, Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, , 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 transfer policy is concerned, the transfer policy is 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.

In The Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Others Vs. G. Ratnam and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under:

It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rule, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right to continue at a particular place. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal grounds as aforestated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order.

If the petitioner has been tranferred to a place where no post of Range Officer is available, the respondent-authorities may consider the same and post the petitioner at a place, where a post of Range Officer is available and there is vacancy, in public interest.

For the reasons as aforestated, the petition is dismissed.