2025:CGHC:57511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13364 of 2025 1 - Dr. Hariram Ogare S/o Late Shri Narayan Das Ogare Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 53, Gulab Nagar, Devpuri, Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry (Pasudhan Vikas Vibhag), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002 (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director Veterinary Hospital Nawapara, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing his transfer order dated 30.06.2025 by which he has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Nawapara, District – Raipur to Veterinary Hospital, Pakhanjur District – Kanker. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred WPS No. 8495 of 2025 before this Court, KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.11.27 11:36:37 +0530 wherein, vide order dated 21.08.2025, this Court directed the Transfer Committee to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner and, in the meanwhile, to maintain status quo. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner’s representation was considered and rejected by the Committee vide order dated 31.10.2025. He would further submit that the present transfer order violates the transfer policy inasmuch as no vacant post is available at the new place of posting; therefore, the transfer order deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the present transfer has been made on administrative grounds. Even if no vacant post exists at the transferred place, the same does not adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. Transfer being an incident of service, no Government employee can claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place of posting. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. A bare perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has not disclosed since when he has been posted at the present place of posting. Upon a specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working at the present place of posting for the last 3–4 years, however, no specific assertion has been made in the pleadings nor any supporting material has been placed on record. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that transfer is an incident of service, and no Government servant can insist upon being retained at a particular place of posting. Therefore, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned transfer order. It is further clarified that the absence of a vacant post at the new place does not adversely affect the service conditions of the petitioner, and hence the contention that no vacancy exists at the new place of posting is misconceived. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh