1 2025:CGHC:33807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7261 of 2025 1 - Jalaluddin Ansari S/o Late Rahman Miya Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Peon At Govt Middle School Khursiya Block Baikunthpur District Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Koriya Baikunthpur District Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Peon and posted at Govt. Middle School, Khursiya, District Koriya has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Anandpur, District Koriya. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 11:37:09 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the transfer of the petitioner is against the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. He is a class-IV employee and has been transferred about 150 KMs away from the present place of posting. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from severe Asthama Bronchitis and Liver problem and her treatment is continued at Govt. Hospital, Chirmiri. The petitioner is also having responsibilities of his old aged mother and in such situation, his transfer would put him in great difficulty to work there at his transferred place of posting. The petitioner has already made his representation to the respondent No.3 on 27.06.2025, but the same has not been considered till date, therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner may be quashed. 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. Further, the transfer order dated 24.06.2025 has been issued after due approval of the concerned In-charge Minister of the district. With respect to his personal and family problem, the petitioner has already made the representation on 27.06.2025 to the respondent No.3, and it is for the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. The transfer of the petitioner is under the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and there is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge his transfer order in the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents 3 annexed with the writ petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, however, he could not demonstrate violation of any condition of the said transfer policy. It is apparent from the order dated 24.06.2025 that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative exigency and after due approval of the In-charge Minister of the district. With respect to the personal and family problem of the petitioner, he has already made his representation to the respondent No.3 on 27.06.2025 and it is for the respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and also in view of administrative exigency and other applicable rules and circulars. No ground could be made out by the petitioner to quash the transfer order dated 24.06.2025 in the present writ petition. 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 4 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 transfer order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved