1 2025:CGHC:37675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 401 of 2023 Rajola Prasad Banjare S/o Shri Nain Das Banjare Aged About 39 Years R/o Bhaistara Block - Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Department, Manatralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Health Services Indrawati Bhavan New Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Join Director Health Services Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical Officer Janjgir - Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center Block - Bamhanidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ajay Kumar Manhar Ophthalmic Assistant Primary Health Center Pandatarai, Block - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. 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):- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate for set aside the impugned transfer order dated 21.12.2022 and YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:44 +0530 2 30.12.2022 in respect of the petitioner in the fact and circumstances of the case and restore the order dated 01.12.2022 for continuation of the Primary Health Centre Sothi, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner, after being promoted to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant by order dated 30.12.2022, was initially posted at PHC Choriya, which was later amended by order dated 01.12.2022 to PHC Sothi. The petitioner was duly relieved on 08.12.2022 and joined at PHC Sothi on 12.12.2022, where he has been serving sincerely. It is submitted that, without any justification, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 was issued cancelling the petitioner’s amended posting at PHC Sothi and directing him to join back at PHC Choriya. This action was taken to accommodate respondent No.5, who had been transferred to PHC Sothi by an earlier order dated 30.09.2022 and later allowed to join pursuant to an order dated 21.12.2022. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order is arbitrary and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation of a duly effected posting, after the petitioner had joined and started functioning, is unjustified and liable to be set aside. 3 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. 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 18.01.2023, has been granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioner to the effect that purely as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of impugned order dated 30.12.2022, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. 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 18.01.2023. 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. 4 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 30.12.2022 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. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh