1 / 5 2025:CGHC:16650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2401 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Kumar Masta S/o Ram Niwas Masta Aged About 59 Years R/o T.T.-45, Parthivi Province, Sarona, Near Ring Road No.01, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – Principal, Dudhadhari Bajrang Government Women’s College, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 – Principal, Government Navin College, Mangchua, District - Balod (C.G.) 5 - Additional Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.04.10 13:29:28 +0530 2 / 5 6 - R. Prasanna, Posted As Officer On Special Duty C.I.M.S., Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24/03/2025 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner is also challenging the transfer order dated 19/01/2025 by which he has been transferred from Govt. Women’s College, Raipur to Govt. Navin College, Mangchua. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics in Dudhadhari Bajrang Government Women’s College, Raipur and vide order dated 19.1.2025 he has been transferred to Government Navin College, Mangchua, District Balod on administrative basis. Learned counsel further submits that on 20.1.2025 the petitioner was relieved by the Principal of the Dudhadhari Bajrang Government Women’s College, Raipur, however, on 18.1.2025, he has been directed to appear in the first training for the local bodies elections of 2025, as such the transfer order is required to be quashed. He further submits that as someone has made complaint against the petitioner as such he is being transferred. Against the transfer order dated 19/01/2025, 3 / 5 the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.784/2025 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30/01/2025 granting a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the authorities. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the concerned authority however, the same has been rejected by the order impugned dated 24/03/2025 in an illegal and arbitrary manner and also passed a non-speaking and unreasoned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the transfer is an exigency of service and no indulgence is required for, as such, the transfer order is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is apparent that the respondent authorities considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and found that the petitioner failed to assign any cogent and plausible reasons and the operation of model code of conduct in the State is also over as on the date. The petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting only on the basis of administrative exigency that too has been passed with due coordination of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 has observed as under: 4 / 5 “Transfer is an incident of Government Service and who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It held that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Similarly, in the case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1 it has been held by the Supreme Court that transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service and that whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted, are the matters which are governed by the exigencies of service, and that an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. The Supreme Court went on to add that executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.” 7. It is apparent from the order impugned and from the record that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Professor (Economics) at the Govt. women’s College, Raipur and he has been transferred to Govt. Navin College, Mangchua for smooth functioning that too not at too far distance. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any ground that the order impugned has been passed with mala-fide intention or the same in violation of any statutory provisions. 9. Since, it is a settled law in the matter of Union of India and others (Supra), wherein it has been observed by the Supreme 5 / 5 Court that transfer is an incident of Government Service and who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Therefore, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the order impugned which has been passed on the basis of administrative exigency, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the same is just and proper. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merits at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar