1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6580 of 2025 1 - Kishor Kumar Wakde S/o Late Shri Vijay Wakde Aged About 40 Years Working As Patwari And Posted At Patwari Halka No. 35 Jangalpur, Tahsil Dongargaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Ramesh Sahu Working As Patwari At Patwari Halka No. 33 Ghorda, Tahsil Dongargaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is the Patwari has been transferred from P.H. No. 35, VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:59:17 +0530 2 Jangalpur, Tahsil Dongargaon to P.H. No. 3, Chircharikala, Tahsil Kumarda on administrative exigency and public interest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, vide order dated 17.06.2025, the respondent No.4 Ramesh Sahu was transferred from P.H. No. 33 Ghorda, Tahsil Dongargaon to P.H. No. 35 Jangalpur, Tahsil Dongargaon and the petitioner has been transferred from Jangalpur to Chircharikala by the same order dated 17.06.2025. The petitioner was earlier transferred on 05.03.2021 and given charge of P.H. No. 53 Gondalwahi, and thereafter, he was transferred on 18.10.2022 from P.H. No. 53 Gondalwali, Tahsil Chhuriya to P.H. No. 35 Rampur, Tahsil Dongargaon. Within the short span of time, he repeatedly transferred to various places. The wife of the petitioner is also posted as Staff Nurse at Govt. Medical College Attached Hospital, Rajnandgaon and the present place of transfer of the petitioner is about 70 KMs away from Rajnandgaon and it would be very difficult for him to manage the family affairs. Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the transfer policy has been violated, as there is no recommendation of the concerned Minister for the impugned transfer order. Further, as per clause 1.3 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, the authorities cannot transfer more than 10% of the class-IV employee, but in the present case, about 40% Patwaris have been transferred. Raising his grievances, the petitioner has made his representation on 18.06.2025 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongargaon, but the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the transfer of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and on the public interest. Vide transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), the respondent No.4 has been transferred in place of the petitioner and the petitioner has been transferred to Chircharikala, Tahsildar Kumarda. The order dated 05.03.2021 is not the transfer order of the petitioner, but it is the handing over the charge of patwari halka number to the petitioner. Further, vide transfer order dated 18.10.2022, the petitioner was transferred from Godalwahi, Tahsil Chhuriya to Rampur, Tahsil Dongargaon, which is about 2 ½ years back and the petitioner cannot take any benefit of frequent transfer. The transfer order dated 17.06.2025 is on administrative exigency and public interest and obtaining the consent of the concerned Minister is the internal communication of the department and also fixing the 10% criteria of the employees to be transferred is also depends upon the administrative exigency and public interest, which cannot be made as a straight jacket formula, therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is justified and needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to his transfer order, by which he has been transferred from Jangalpur, Tahsil Dongargaon to Chircharikala, Tahsil Kumarda. From the order dated 18.10.2022 4 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was transferred from Godalwahi, Tahsil Chhuriya to Rampur, Tahsil Dongargaon, which is about 2 ½ years back and cannot be said that the petitioner cannot be again transferred to any other place. It is quite vivid from the order dated 05.03.2021 that only the charge of patwari halka number is changed and it is not the transfer order. The approval of the concerned Minister and transfer of the employees either 10% or more than 10% are to be considered by the department in view of the administrative exigency and public interest. The petitioner could not demonstrate any arbitrary or mala fide action against the petitioner, which makes him entitled for the relief of quashing his transfer order. 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 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. 5 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