1 2025:CGHC:36435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7802 of 2023 1 - Rekha Singh W/o Dharmendra Singh Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Superintendent Of Police (Ajak), Jabalpur, R/o Flat No. 103, Tomsa Tower, 6th Battalion Campus, Ranjhi, Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya-Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. The petitioner, by way of the instant petition, challenges the legality, propriety, and validity of the order dated 06.09.2022, whereby the application of petitioner for transfer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre to the Chhattisgarh cadre was rejected. The petitioner submits that he was originally appointed to the Madhya Pradesh cadre following the bifurcation of the State of Chhattisgarh, and hence is entitled to be Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 transferred to the Chhattisgarh cadre. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 It is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Court that a writ/direction may kindly be issued to quash the order dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2 denying extension of service of petitioner 10.2 To issue a writ of mandamus/direction directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner 10.3 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice 10.4 Cost of the petition” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh to the post of Additional Assistant Development Commissioner on 19.12.1999. Subsequently, on 09.03.2001, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Following this appointment, communication was made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, to the Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development for the transfer of the service of petitioner to the Home Department, vide letter dated 05.03.2001. The husband of petitioner, an IPS officer, was transferred from the Madhya Pradesh cadre to the Chhattisgarh cadre in the year 2002. Aggrieved by this transfer, the husband of petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein an interim order was granted in his favor. This writ petition was ultimately 3 disposed of in 2018, following which the husband of petitioner formally joined the Chhattisgarh cadre in the same year. Subsequent to transfer her husband, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary of Home Affairs, Government of India, seeking transfer of her own service from the Madhya Pradesh cadre to the Chhattisgarh cadre. This request was based on Section 68(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, which vests the power of cadre allocation with the Central Government. The Government of India disposed of the representation of petitioner on 08.05.2019 and issued communication to both the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to resolve the matter through mutual consultation. Pursuant to the directive from the Government of India, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh, considered and decided the representation of petitioner for a change of cadre from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, vide letter dated 22.04.2020, Madhya Pradesh conveyed to respondent no. 1 its no objection to the transfer of the cadre of petitioner to Chhattisgarh. The letter requested the Chhattisgarh authorities to issue an acceptance letter for the transfer of the petitioner. In compliance with the aforementioned letter, the respondent authorities in Chhattisgarh initiated proceedings and prepared recommendations regarding the request of petitioner for cadre transfer. Despite these developments, the application of petitioner for change of cadre was ultimately rejected by the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 06.09.2022. The rejection was premised on the ground that the petitioner was appointed to the Madhya Pradesh cadre after the bifurcation of the State of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, her request for transfer to the 4 Chhattisgarh cadre could not be accepted. The impugned order thus negates the earlier approvals and communications, leaving the representation of petitioner unaddressed on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the communication issued by the Government of India indicating that the case of petitioner may be considered by mutual consultation between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Chhattisgarh, there was no objection from the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the respondent, by the impugned order, has arbitrarily refused to consider the case of petitioner. Such refusal is without any basis and is manifestly unjust. In identical circumstances, the respondents have considered and allowed the change of cadre from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh in respect of similarly situated persons. The application of petitioner, however, has been rejected on similar grounds, which amounts to discrimination and denial of a fair opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered fairly and objectively for the change of cadre. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the Government of India, highlighting that several candidates’ cases have been considered, and accordingly, the case of petitioner should also be considered. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of specific rules, the actions of the government must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. The impugned order itself acknowledges the absence of any rules governing change of cadre. Despite this, similarly placed persons’ cases have been considered, whereas the application of petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily. The respondents, as public authorities discharging public duties, are mandated to act fairly, justly, and equitably by objectively considering 5 all relevant factors and options. Their actions must bear the hallmark of fairness and reasonableness. The arbitrary and capricious rejection of the application of petitioner by the respondents is irrational, unreasonable, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, rule of law, equality, and justice. Such action is liable to be set aside by this Court. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to consider the application of petitioner for change of cadre from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh fairly and on merits. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition filed by the petitioner is without any legal basis and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Police Department and was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 09/03/2001, seeks transfer of her services from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh in order to join her husband, an IPS officer serving in Chhattisgarh since 2002. However, the case of petitioner does not fall within the scope of the Madhya Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2000, as she joined the Police Service after the appointed date of bifurcation of the State. The Government of India, after due consideration, vide its order dated 08/05/2019, categorically held that the case of petitioner is not covered by the Central Advisory Committee established for the purpose and has directed that the case may be resolved by mutual consultation between the successor States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Despite this, the State of Madhya Pradesh has raised legitimate concerns including the claim of training expenses amounting to Rs. 1,51,921/- incurred on the 6 petitioner, as communicated to the Chhattisgarh Government. Moreover, there is no statutory or administrative provision in either State that empowers the authorities to transfer or absorb the service of petitioner from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh, especially considering the adverse impact such transfer would have on the seniority and service conditions of officers already serving in Chhattisgarh. The respondents have thoroughly examined the request of petitioner and explored all possible options, but due to the absence of any governing rule or provision permitting such transfer, the request of petitioner was lawfully and reasonably denied. The petitioner herself has annexed the relevant proceedings [Annexure P/6] that demonstrate the decision was taken after due deliberation and is in accordance with the law. Therefore, the petitioner does not possess any legally enforceable right to seek transfer or absorption into the Chhattisgarh Police Service, and the impugned order refusing such transfer is just, proper, and in line with the extant legal framework. In light of the foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed with costs. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Having carefully examined the submissions and the materials on record, it is evident that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.09.2022, whereby the respondent authorities have denied the request for transfer of her services from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh. The order in question is a final administrative decision taken after due consideration by the competent authorities. Since the said order was passed on 06.09.2022, and no 7 interim relief or stay has been granted by this Court in respect of the service or transfer of petitioner, there is presently no live controversy or urgent matter requiring the intervention of Court. The petitioner remains in service under the Madhya Pradesh cadre in accordance with the existing arrangement, and the impugned order stands binding unless and until set aside in an appropriate forum. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no substantial or immediate issue necessitating adjudication at this stage. The adjudication of the merits of the case, including the legality and propriety of the impugned order, would require a thorough and detailed examination of the facts, rules, and policies governing cadre transfers, which is beyond the scope of present stage of this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, the petition is liable to be disposed of without entering into the merits of the case. However, it is equally imperative to protect the legitimate rights and interests of petitioner, should circumstances arise in the future that warrant judicial scrutiny or intervention. Therefore, the petitioner is granted ample liberty and encouragement to approach this Court afresh by filing an appropriate petition if any exigency or grievance arises relating to her service conditions, transfer, or any other consequential matter. Such a petition would be considered independently on its own merits and in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is not prejudiced or denied her statutory or constitutional rights. 8. The Court emphasizes that this is a procedural disposal at this juncture and does not constitute any adjudication on the substantive rights or 8 claims of the petitioner. The right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order or any future administrative action remains fully intact and available for exercise within the prescribed legal framework. 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE