1 2025:CGHC:42353-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 622 of 2025 Manish Suryawanshi S/o Moolchand Suryawanshi Aged About 35 Years Posted As Tahsildar Sarangarh District Sarangarh-BilaigarhChhattisgarh ... Appellant(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) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.22 10:37:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.08.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5430 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by writ petitioner in WPS No. 5430 of 2025, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Nayab Tahsildar and posted at District Sarguja vide order Dated 07.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department. Thereafter, vide order Dated 29.07.2023 issued by the Under Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, thereby transfer the services of the petitioner from Sarguja Dantewada to District Janjgir-Champa. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tehsildar on 08.07.2024 and posted to District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh from District Janjgir-Champa. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under :- “4. The petitioner, who is appointed on the post of Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 07.04.2018, was 3 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, though there may be certain guidelines, but there is no complete restrictions. 4 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 5 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. 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.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Clause 3.9 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 will be applicable to the appellant as the appellant has been promoted and transferred to Sarangarh- Bilaigarh on 08.07.2024. He further submits that the appellant has only completed 10 months at Saranarh-Biliaigarh, thus the impugned transfer order is in gross violation of Clause 3.9 of the transfer policy. As, Clause 3.9 of the transfer policy states that officer/employee posted for less than one year as on 01.06.2025 6 will not be transferred. He further submits that the appellant be allowed to file a representation raising his grievance before the transfer committee as constituted by the State government under Clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument made and submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and needs no interference. Further, on pointed query made by this Court, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has not been relieved from his present place of posting and no one has been posted in the said place. In this regard, a copy of the communication dated 21-8-2025 issued by the Collector, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, has been placed before this Court, which is taken on record. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Bare perusal of the records shows that the petitioner was promoted and transferred to Sarangarh-Bilaigarh on 08.07.2024 and has completed 10 months of service. Further, perusal of Clause 3.9 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 states that officer/employee posted for less than one year as on 01.06.2025 will not be transferred. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and situation of the case, as the petitioner was posted at Sarangarh-Bilaigarh on 08.07.2024 and 7 has only completed 10 months of service; thus the transfer order dated 06.06.2025 is in violation of the Clause 3.9 of the transfer policy. Accordingly the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5430 of 2025 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 9. The appellant/ writ petitioner is directed to file a representation before the transfer committee within a period of 3 days as per Clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. On filing of the same, the transfer committee is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law on its own merits within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.As the petitioner has not been relieved from the present place of posting status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the placement of the petitioner, be maintained till the decision of the representation by the transfer committee. 11. In the result, the present writ appeal is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti