1 2025:CGHC:37680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1852 of 2023 Lokesh Chandan S/o Shri Netram Chandan Aged About 36 Years Rural Health Conjunction (Sanyojak) At Sub Health Centre, Ghorda Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Committee Of Senior Secretary Through Secretary Gad Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, P.S. And P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Under Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur – Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Medical And Health Officer Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing/set aside the order dated 22.12.22 (Annexure P-7) and arising out of order dated YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:46 +0530 2 30.09.22 (Annexure P-4) possed by the respondent no.1 & 2 in respect of petitioner. ii) Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 issued by respondent No.1, arising out of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2, transferring the petitioner from Sub Health Centre Ghorda to Sub Health Centre Sitagaon, is arbitrary and contrary to the State Government’s Transfer Policy of 2022 and circular dated 03.06.2015. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s representation highlighting personal and medical grounds was rejected without proper consideration or reasoned order, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The impugned action is also in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of School Education vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, (1994) 2 SCC 666, wherein it was held that while transfer is a condition of service, it must not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Accordingly, the impugned transfer deserves to be quashed. 3 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 3 5 It has been reflected from the record that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023, has been granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioner to the following effect :- “Learned counsel for the State would submit that on administrative exigency, the petitioner has been transferred as he is working as Rural Health Conjunction (Sanyojak) in the health department. Let the State files an affidavit indicating that how many posts are lying vacant and what is the exigency for transferring this particular person and also indicating work strength of atleast 5 nearby Health Centres from where the petitioner has been transferred. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has been transferred in the month of September, 2022 and more than six months had already been elapsed and earlier there was no interim protection was granted, therefore, he would not be able to inform the Court as to what is the status of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is still working in the present place of posting. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned transfer order shall remain stayed.” 4 6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has assailed the transfer order primarily on the ground of arbitrariness and malafide intention, asserting that the same was not issued on any genuine administrative ground. It is also not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already granted interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 13.03.2023. 7 It is well-settled that although transfer is an incident of service and falls within the administrative domain of the employer, such discretion must be exercised fairly and in accordance with established policies. Arbitrary or frequent transfers, particularly without valid justification, disrupt the service conditions and cannot be sustained in law. 8 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the passage of time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order has lost its practical significance. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order 22.12.2012 issued by respondent No.1, arising out of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is held to be arbitrary and unsustainable and is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to issue fresh and appropriate orders regarding the posting of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, rules, and the applicable transfer policy, if administrative necessity so requires. 5 9 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh