-1- 2025:CGHC:45567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2094 of 2022 Devendra Pratap Singh Thakur S/o Shri B. S. Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post Paldih, Police Station Pathalgaon, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Dimrapal Medical College Campus, Jagdalpur, Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary/ Upper Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Medical Education (D M E), Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dean Of Govt. Medical College (Baliram Kashyap Memorial) Medical College Dimrapal, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.09. 2025 1) The petitioner, who is working to the post of Medical Lab Technician at Government Medical College, Jagdalpur, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for his transfer to a place near his family in terms of the transfer policy of the State Government. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 22.09.2008 on the post of Medical Lab Technician and he has been continuously serving at Jagdalpur for more than 12 years. It is contended that the wife of the petitioner is serving as a Lecturer Grade-III at Government Higher Secondary School, Kusmura, District Raigarh. It is argued that under clause 1.10 of the transfer policy, husband and wife should normally be posted at the same or nearby place. 3) Learned counsel further submits that several representations dated 25.01.2014, 15.06.2016, 17.07.2017, and 30.06.2019 were made by the petitioner for transfer near his family, but the same were not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 649/2021, which was disposed of on 17.02.2021 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s pending representation within six months. It is submitted that instead of considering his representation on merits, the respondent authorities, vide order dated 16.12.2021, rejected the same as there was prohibition under the transfer policy -3- of 2019. He submits that the said policy does not impose any prohibition, and in fact, transfers of other employees have been effected during the same period; thus, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that transfer is an incidence of service, and no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. It is submitted that the petitioner’s representation has been duly considered and rejected by the respondent authorities, thus, no interference is required by this Court. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filling WPS No. 649/2021, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation. In compliance thereof, the respondent authorities have passed the order dated 16.12.2021, whereby prayer of the petitioner for transfer was rejected. 7) In the matter of transfer, this Court may stay the effect and operation of any transfer order, if same is unreasonable, affecting the service conditions of the Government Servant or Government Servant is victim of frequent transfer, but in my opinion, no direction can be issued for transfer of service of a Government Servant to a desired place. -4- 8) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 9) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim