1 2025:CGHC:47715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10595 of 2025 • Dr. Jainendra Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Jawahar Lal Suryavanshi Aged About 49 Years Working As Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, At Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Live Stock Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5. Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State. : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 30-6-2025 by which he has been transferred from Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir 2 Champa to Veterinary Hospital, Madded, District Bijapur on administrative exigency. 2. Earlier the petitioner raising his grievances has filed Writ Petition (s) No.755 of 2025 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 22-7-2025 had directed the petitioner to prefer a representation on its own merit and till then no coercive steps shall be taken against him. In pursuance of the direction, the petitioner had preferred a representation which has been rejected by the respondent authority vide impugned order dated 19-8-2025 (Annexure P/1). The Transfer Committee also referring para 2.1 and 1.3 of the transfer policy has taken note of confirmation made by the petitioner, but according to the petitioner no discussion has been made with respect to submission made by the petitioner in representation which is contrary to para 2.1 of the policy. It has also been contended that the Transfer committee without assigning any reason merely on the count that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground has dismissed the representation which is nothing but arbitrariness, suffers from mala- fide and would pray for allowing the petition by quashing the impugned order dated 19-8-2025 as well as transfer order dated 30-6-2025. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner had remained posted at particular place since 2009 and due to shortage in manpower in Bastar Division the Government has transferred the employees, as such there exigency exists and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 5. The first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the representation he has raised grievance with regard to violation of the transfer policy but it has not been examined by the Committee. Before examining the rival submissions it is necessary to consider the scope of interference by Courts/Tribunals with orders of transfer of a Government servant or an employee of a public sector undertaking. Transfer of an employee, appointed to a class or category of transferable posts, from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition, of service necessary too in public interest and efficiency in public administration. No government servant has a legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or a place of his choice. It is well settled position of law that transfer policy does not confer any right to Government servant to remain posted at one particular place for ever. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 (12) SCC 1 has examined the legal sanctity of the transfer policy and has held that the transfer policy does not confer any right to Government servant to remain posted at particular place. When transfer policy does not confer any right to Government servant to remain posted at particular place, whether this Court can command the respondent to take note of the clause made in the policy has to be ascertained by this Court. In view of the well settled position of law that transfer policy does not confer any right to Government servant, therefore, to raise grievance with regard to posting as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S..K. Nausad Rahaman (supra), I am of the view that this Court cannot issue any direction to the State to comply their own transfer policy and it is for the State to comply with 4 their own policy and this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus to comply with own policy policy which has no statutory force in the eye of law. Thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order passed by the respondent is not compliance of transfer policy of the State Government, as such, it is illegal, misconceived, deserves to be rejected. 6. When this Court posed a specific query that since when the petitioner has been posted at present place of posting as there is no such pleading made in this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would submit that the petitioner is posted since 2019, Thus, he had remained posted at particular place for more than six years which is longer period for retaining a Government servant at particular place, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the transfer order does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.19 15:54:35 +0530