1 2025:CGHC:52881-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 776 of 2025 Smt. Deepika Kurrey W/o Shri Ravi Shankar Singh Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Engineer (O), O/o S.E. (City) Circle, C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager C.S.P.D.C.L., Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Director C.S.P.D.C.L., Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintending Engineer (City) Circle C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1-State For Respondents No.2 to 4 : : Mr. Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Mr.Mayanak Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10646 of 2025 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the appellant is subjected to frequent transfer as she was earlier transferred as Assistant Engineer (TSG) Sub Division Sarangarh, Executive Engineer (STM) Division District Raigarh to Office of Assistant Engineer (Executive) Office of Superintending Engineer (City circle) Bilaspur on 24.09.2024 and prior to it she has been transferred as Assistant Engineer from the office of Superintending Engineer (City circle) Bilaspur to office of Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) Bilaspur as Assistant Engineer. The appellant is carrying pregnancy, therefore, it will be difficult for her to travel three divisions i.e. Bilaspur, Pendra and Mungeli and therefore, she has filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order, against which, this writ appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action of the 3 respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge erred in upholding the transfer order dated 30.06.2025 on the ground of “administrative exigency,” without any supporting material or justification from the respondents. He further submits that the appellant has been subjected to frequent transfers within less than one year, contrary to the State’s transfer policy, indicating mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the appellant’s personal circumstances, particularly her pregnancy and ill-health of her minor child, which deserved sympathetic consideration. He also submits that the impugned transfer is punitive in nature, though disguised as an administrative transfer, causing grave hardship to the appellant. Learned Single Judge misapplied the ratio of SK Noshad Rahaman & Other v. Union of India & Other, 2020 (12) SCC 1 and failed to appreciate that judicial review lies where a transfer is arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to service rules. He contended that the transfer violates the binding policy contained in the circulars dated 23.02.2006, 03.03.2006 and 24.02.2009, which prescribe a minimum tenure of three years at one posting and the appellant’s repeated transfers on 24.09.2024, 17.01.2025 and 30.06.2025 reflect administrative arbitrariness and non-application of mind. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 supports the impugned order and submits that learned Single Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which warrants no interference by this Court. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with this writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Engineer, office of Superintending Engineer (City) circle, Bilaspur to Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) Superintending Engineer (City) Circle Bilaspur, though she may travel but other officers are also available with her, therefore, it cannot be said that she will face any difficult for carrying out of her job. It is well settled principle of law that the petitioner cannot insist to remain posted in a particular place of posting for a particular period or for the entire service period as transfer is exigency of service. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other 2020 (12) SCC 1 has held the government servant cannot insist to remain posted at one place for ever, as such I am of the view that the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 does not suffer from perversity or illegality, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 5 However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue her representation which has already been filed before the respondents. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu