1 2025:CGHC:33280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7156 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Panigrahi S/o Shri H.C. Panigrahi, Aged About 44 Years Working As Driver At Office Of Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur At Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Livestock Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur At Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur At Baster, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Sonsay Kashyap, Working As Driver At Govt. Sukar Breeding Area Parchanpal, Baster, Block Baster Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For State : Shri Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.07. 202 5 1. Challenge in this petition is the order of transfer dated 25.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Jagdalpur to Parchanpal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action on part of the respondents is violative of transfer policy. The petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate the private respondent. It is not a case where the petitioner was excess as only two Drivers were posted against four sanctioned post of Driver in his present place of posting. Lastly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver to drive Non Transport Vehicle whereas 2 at transferred place of posting there is no post of Driver (Non Transport). Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed as it would be difficult for him to drive Transport Vehicle at the transferred place of posting. 3. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that the order of transfer has been issued on administrative exigency looking into requirement of work in different offices of the State Govt. under the respondents. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 4. It is trite law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view the public interest as well as the administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order or when the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by the Court orders. It is not a case of proved malafide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 5. The transfer policy is mere guidelines. The transfer policy may not supplant the general powers of employer provided under the statutory service rules i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. Even otherwise, the contention of the petitioner that there is no post of Driver (Non Transport) at the transferred place of posting and he would find it difficult to drive Transport vehicle is concerned, it is all the matter to be decided by the department as to what kind of work they will assign to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being sans merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder