1 2025:CGHC:52879-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 764 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. ... Appellant 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 ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 . 10 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/ State. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.10595 of 2025 (Dr. Jainendra Kumar Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being WPS No. 10595 of 2025 assailing the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 by which he has been transferred from Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa to Veterinary Hospital, Madded, District Bijapur on administrative exigency. Earlier the appellant raising his grievances has filed Writ Petition (s) No.755 of 2025 before this Court and the same was disposed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.07.02025 had directed the appellant 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 appellant had preferred a representation which has been rejected by the respondent authority vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (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 appellant, but according to the appellant no discussion has 3 been made with respect to submission made by the appellant in representation which is contrary to para 2.1 of the policy. It was contended that the Transfer committee without assigning any reason merely on the count that the appellant 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 19.08.2025 as well as transfer order dated 30.06.2025. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition, hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to observe that the petitioner has already given his service in Scheduled area for more than 5 years at Veterinary Hospital, Lodam, District – Jashpur and as per para 2.1 of the policy dated 30.06.2015, which is still existence and mentioned that in Scheduled area maximum posting period should be three years and core Scheduled area should be two years, whereas the appellant now is being sent again to a scheduled area. He further submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the wife of appellant is also a State Government employee and posted as Professor at T.C.L. College Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, and as per para 3.13 of transfer policy 2025, so far as possible, both the husband and wife must be posted at the same place, the appellant ought to have been 4 posted at the nearest place of posting of his wife, even adjacent districts many posts of appellant are vacant, but now the appellant has been transferred more than 600 KM away illegally. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/State opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. 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. From perusal of the record it transpires that the appellant was posted in the present place of posting since 2019, thus he had remained posted at particular place for more than six years, which is longer period 5 for retaining a Government servant at particular place and due to shortage of manpower in Bastar Division, the Government has transferred the employees, as such there exigency exists, as such, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the 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, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra