1 2025:CGHC:56759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13190 of 2025 • Dr. Mahesh Shrivastava S/o Late Lakhana Lal Shrivastava Aged About 61 Years Government Employee Professor, Economic, Presently Posted At Govt. Pg Digvijay Authonomous College, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), R/o Naivadya, Kamla College Road, Housing Board Colony, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Principal Government Digvijay Autonomous Post Graduate College Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State. : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 2 21/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 2-1-2023 by which the petitioner who is working as Assistant Professor has been transferred from Government PG Digvijay College, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon to Likhan Say Government College, Tapakara, District Jashpur. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 13-11-2025 issued by the respondent No.3 by which he has been relieved after two years and ten months of issuing the transfer order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transfer order dated 2-1-2023 has been implemented after lapse of two years and ten months and by the said order the petitioner has been relieved by respondent No.3, therefore, the transfer order has lost its significance He would further submit that while transferring the petitioner no administrative exigency has been mentioned in the transfer order and as such, the transfer order is not permissible under the law and the petitioner cannot be relieved after lapse of such a long time. He would further submit that the transfer order cannot be executed at present due to change of circumstances. Therefore, the transfer order being bad-in-law is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by efflux of time, the transfer order has not lost its significance and it still exists. Therefore, neither transfer order can be quashed by this Court nor it can be altered or modified by the State. He would further submit that the petitioner has already been posted at the present place of posting for more than seven years, therefore, the impugned transfer order does not suffer from any perversity , illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court 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 of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order has lost its significance due to passing of the relieving order after long period. It is not in dispute that the transfer order was passed on 2-1-2023 by the State Government and the reason was also known to the petitioner why he has not been relieved, but it does not vitiate the transfer order which was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, unless and until the issuing authority recalls, review or assigns some. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order has lost its significance, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no administrative exigency has been mentioned in the transfer order, therefore, the transfer order is bad-in-law, is misconceived and also deserves to be rejected. As transfer is an exigency of service and since the petitioner has remained posted at a particular place for more than seven years, therefore, he cannot insist to remain posted at that particular place forever. Being so, the transfer order has rightly been passed and does not require any interference by this Court, therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Before parting with the case, it is expedient for this Court to observe that the order issued by the State is flouted by the subordinate authority, therefore, the State shall monitor the same and take appropriate action against the erring officials who floutes the orders issued by the State Government regarding relieving of the officers who have been transferred by the State Government. This Court has seen that the transfer orders are issued by the State Government but the authorities under the State Government are not allowing the Government servants to be relieved immediately for the reason best known to them. 4 8. Let the State examine this issue why their orders have not been implemented immediately and in so many cases, this Court time and again has seen that the transfer orders are not implemented and only by the intervention of this Court the transfer orders are given effect to. 9. Let the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, issue appropriate direction to the Government Officers that as soon as the transfer order is issued by the State Government, the officers where the Government servants are posted, will review the situation within the stipulated, otherwise, it will amount to arbitrariness on the part of the authority which would not be in the betterment of the smooth administration of the Government. 10.Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Higher Education Department to inquire into the matter why the order has been flouted by the Principal for such a long period. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju