1 2025:CGHC:18991-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 254 of 2025 Roshan Soni S/o Late Shri Tilakram Soni Aged About 50 Years R/o Shivalya Park Khaira Mahasamund (C.G.) Presently Posted At Assistant Grade - Ii Tehsil Office Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Mahasamund Collector Office Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector District Mahasamund Collectorate District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Basna Tehsil Office Basna District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Rina Pandey Working In The Post Of Assistant Grade - Iii At Tehsil Office Basna R/o Tehsilpara Basna District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.29 11:12:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.04.2025 1. Heard Ms. Veethika Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 21.03.2025 (Roshan Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1919 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant is presently posted as Assistant grade II at Tehsil office, Basna, prior to it, the appellant was posted at the office of S.D.O. District Mahasamund. On dated 31.12.2024 an order has been passed by which the place of posting of the appellant was changed from (S.D.O) Tehsil office, Mahasamund to Tehsil office, Basna. The respondent No. 5 was also posted/transferred from Tehsil office, Basna to Tehsil office Mahasamund by the same order dated 31.12.2024. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 5 have submitted representation for cancellation of posting/transfer order dated 31.12.2024 relating to them. The respondent No. 5 filed Writ 3 Petition challenging her order of posting/transfer before the learned Single Judge. This Court pleased to pass protective order in the favor of respondent No. 5. Thereafter the posting/transfer order of the respondent No. 5 has been cancelled. 4. The present appellant had also preferred representation before the respective respondents contending his difficulties for cancellation of posting/transfer order of him but the respondents No.2 to 4 did not consider the same. The appellant filed Writ Petition before this Court against the order of this posting/transfer on several grounds. On dated 21.03.2025 the learned Single Judge heard and passed an order by which the petition as filed by the appellant has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPS No.1919 of 2025, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has not considered the grievance of the appellant that he has been transferred in mid season as his son's board examination of class 10th is running and mother of the appellant is facing kidney problems and under regular treatment at the Hospital of Mahasamund. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has also erred in not considering that the posting/transfer order of respondent No. 5 has been cancelled who was posted/ transferred in place of the appellant, so the 4 posting/transfer order of the appellant should also be cancelled. He also submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in not considering that the impugned posting order in fact transfer order as per Rule 2 of C.G. Civil Services (Joining time Rules), 1982. The posting/transfer order dated 31/12/2024 is contrary to the transfer policy, therefore, order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.1919 of 2025 vide order dated 21.03.2025, holding that the appellant has been posted as Assistant Grade – II in the Office of Tehsildar, Basna, the post of Assistant Grade – II is there and the appellant himself has joined in the present place of posting i.e. the Office of Tehsildar, Basna in the post of Assistant Grade – II. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge 5 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet