1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5430 of 2025 1 - Manish Suryawanshi S/o Moolchand Suryawanshi Aged About 35 Years Posted As Tahsildar Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 11:06:42 +0530 2 03/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Tahsildar and posted at District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, has been transferred to Bijapur on administrative exigency. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was promoted from Nayab Tahsildar to the post of Tahsildar vide order dated 08.07.2024 and was posted in the District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. By the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, he has been transferred from Sarangarh-Bilaigarh to Bijapur. The petitioner was initially appointed on 07.04.2018 on the post of Nayab Tahsildar and was posted at District Surguja and he worked there from 2018 to 2023. District Surguja comes under the scheduled area as per the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 issued by the State Government. Vide order dated 29.07.2023, he was transferred from Surguja to Janjgir-Champa and now by the impugned order, he has been transferred from Sarangarh- Bilaigarh to Bijapur. There is violation of clause 1.3 and 2.1 of the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 issued by the State Government with respect to posting of the employees in scheduled areas and there is also violation of clause 3.9 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. He would further submit that, the wife of the petitioner Smt. Manisha Ware is posted as Ameen at the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kelo Project, Sub-Division No.5, Pussoure, District Raigarh and as per the clause 3.13 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, the husband and wife 3 shall be posted on the same place, but ignoring all these provisions, the petitioner has been transferred to Bijapur, therefore the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Tahsildar on 08.07.2024 and he was posted at District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. Posting on promotion cannot be considered to be transfer. Further, the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 is only a guideline with respect to posting of the employees in the scheduled areas. He would further submit that, clause 1.3 is applicable to the first posting of the employees at the scheduled area and clause 2.1 of the said guidelines dated 03.06.2025 also gives discretion to the State Government to consider the place of posting of the employee on the basis of available vacant post at scheduled area and service rendered by the employee at scheduled area. The petitioner has been transferred on the administrative exigency under the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner cannot be claimed to remain posted at the particular place of posting. The ground of posting of the petitioner and his wife at the same place, is also not available to the petitioner, because the transfer policy itself provides that they may be posted as practical as possible and it is not mandatory that they should be posted at the same place. It is also mentioned in the policy that, such request can be considered sympathetically by the authorities concerned, for which the petitioner has to move his representation before the authorities. He 4 would further submit that, clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 specifically provides for making representation to the transfer committee constituted by the State Government, but the petitioner has not made any representation and filed the present writ petition. He is having efficacious alternative remedy of filing representation; therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4. The petitioner, who is appointed on the post of Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 07.04.2018, was initially posted at Surguja. Vide order dated 29.07.2023, he was transferred from Surguja to Janjgir- Champa, which is the scheduled area to non-scheduled area. The petitioner was not posted in core scheduled area, but he was posted at general scheduled area. Clause 1.3 of the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 provides that, at the time of first posting of the employees, they should be posted at core scheduled area for two years, or in the general scheduled area for three years, and thereafter they may be transferred to non-scheduled area. Clause 2.1 of the said guidelines dated 03.06.2015 provides that, the posting should be two years in core scheduled area and should be three years in general scheduled area and the posting of the employees may be considered in the non- scheduled area as per the availability of vacant post at scheduled area and service rendered by the employee there. It does not prohibit that the employee cannot be again transferred to scheduled area. It is the administrative exigency, in which the employee can be transferred, 5 though there may be certain guidelines, but there is no complete restrictions. 5. The benefit of clause 3.9 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 is also not available to the petitioner, because he was posted at Sarangarh-Bilaigarh by his promotion order dated 08.07.2024. Further, clause 3.13 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 does not benefited the petitioner, as the same is only for the authorities concerned to consider the posting of the employee sympathetically on the ground of husband and wife may be posted at a same place. If there are no vacant posts for both of them, then it could not be possible to be posted at the same place both of them, therefore, it has been made discretionary. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is not revealed that the petitioner has made representation to the transfer committee as constituted by the State Government under clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. 6. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi 6 Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/ State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 7. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved