Chhattisgarh High Court: The Court heard a petition against the transfer order of petitioner on administrative grounds from Integrated Child Development Project from one scheduled area to another. The grievance of the petitioner was that her representation had been rejected by the competent authority on the ground that she was shifted for administrative purpose and the same couldn’t be recalled when the reliever had already been posted against her post.
The counsel for the petitioner referred to a few government circulars and Transfer Policy of 2017 stating that if a government employee has worked for more than 3 years in a scheduled area, he/she should not be transferred again to another schedules area.
While deciding on the matter, Court took note of the fact that the policy and the circular are purely executive instructions and the Court cannot be an appropriate authority to enforce them. Additionally, it observed that every such policy or circular is merely a guideline for transfers and cannot be a statute in itself.
The Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. said that in transfer order as well as in the order rejecting representation, it has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner has been posted on administrative grounds for the betterment of the department. The Court held that it cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Government to post an employee at a particular place. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. [Pramila Barman v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1304, decided on 13.11.2017]
