1 2025:CGHC:42236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9137 of 2025 Dr. Uttam Singh S/o Late Nan Say Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kurridih, Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Health Services Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dr. Kapil Dev Paikra Chief Medical And Health Officer, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dr. Rakesh Singh Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.03 20:47:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner is relieved for District Hospital, Surajpur and he prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the transfer order dated 03/04/2025 (ANNEXURE P/01), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to restore the petitioner as Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, Surajpur. 10.4 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The subject matter in brief is that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 on the post of Medical Officer. After bifurcation of the State, his services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 2017, when he was posted as Pediatrician at District Hospital, Surajpur, he was given additional charge of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. On 21.08.2024, the petitioner was relieved from additional charge of Block Medical Officer, Bhaiyathan and the respondent No.5 was appointed as Incharge Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 21.08.2024 in WPS No. 5241 of 2024 before this Court, in which vide order dated 30.08.2024 an interim order of stay is granted in favour of the 3 petitioner and the effect and operation of the order dated 21.08.2024 was stayed. On 21.11.2024, the State Government passed an order, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Block Medical Officer, Bhaiyathan to Medical Specialist, Community Health Centre, Kunkuri, District Jashpur. The said transfer order dated 21.11.2024 was again challenged in another WPS No. 8004 of 2024, in which by the interim order dated 09.12.2024, the effect and operation of the order dated 21.11.2024 with respect to petitioner’s transfer was stayed, and he was directed to discharge the functions of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur until further orders. On 03.01.2025, the order dated 21.11.2024 with respect to transfer of the petitioner is cancelled and he was directed to remain posted as Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. On 07.04.2025, when his earlier writ petition i.e. WPS No. 5241 of 2024 was came up for hearing, the same was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that vide order dated 03.04.2025, the State Government has corrected the transfer order and nothing remains for adjudication in the writ petition, however, liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to question the same, if he is aggrieved in any manner. The petitioner has further claimed recalling/modification of the order dated 07.04.2025, passed in WPS No. 5241 of 2024, in MCC No. 663 of 2025, which is disposed of on 09.07.2025, holding that in the order dated 07.04.2025, the liberty was already granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him against the order dated 03.04.2025, but without availing his remedy, he filed the present application for recalling/modification of the order dated 07.04.2025, and therefore, the 4 application is not maintainable at this stage and the liberty to challenge the order dated 03.04.2025 was remain intact. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the present writ petition challenging the order dated 03.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 is nothing but a colourable exercise of administrative power and has been passed with a clear intent to nullify the effect of earlier interim protections granted by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that pursuant to the interim orders passed in W.P.(S) No. 5241/2024 and W.P.(S) No. 8004/2024, the petitioner was permitted to discharge duties as Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan, and subsequently, the State Government itself, vide order dated 03.01.2025, restored the petitioner to the said In-Charge post. However, without any fresh administrative exigency or recorded reason, the respondent No.4 has issued the impugned order dated 03.04.2025, thereby virtually restoring the earlier order dated 21.08.2024, which had already been subjected to challenge before this Court. *******It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Class-I Officer selected through the Public Service Commission in the year 1996, whereas respondent No.5 is a Class-II Medical Officer appointed in the year 2019 and admittedly junior to the petitioner. The governing circulars dated 23.07.2008, 14.07.2014 and 04.08.2011 clearly mandate that the post of Block Medical Officer is to be filled on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness and preference is to be given to senior officers. In the absence of any adverse material against the 5 petitioner, appointment of a junior officer to the In-Charge post is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order does not disclose any reason as to why the petitioner, despite being senior and eligible, has been superseded. *******Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to override or dilute the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the State Government. The impugned action amounts to sitting in appeal over the decision of the competent authority, which is impermissible in law. Such action is contrary to the settled service jurisprudence and runs afoul of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.V. Sivaiah vs. K. Addanki Babu (1998) 6 SCC 720 and Union of India vs. N.R. Banerjee (1997) 9 SCC 287, wherein it has been held that supersession of a senior without justifiable reasons is arbitrary and illegal. *******It is lastly contended that the impugned order is non-speaking, suffers from non-application of mind, and has serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner’s service profile and future promotional prospects. In absence of any disciplinary proceedings, complaint or adverse entry against the petitioner, the action of the respondents is wholly unjustified. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be restored to the post of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in 6 law. It is contended that the petitioner has no vested or statutory right to claim continuance on the post of Block Medical Officer, as the said post was being held by him only as an In-Charge arrangement. The substantive appointment of the petitioner is that of a Medical Officer/Medical Specialist, and posting on an In-Charge administrative post does not confer any enforceable right. *******It is further submitted that transfer and posting are incidents of service and fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The impugned order dated 03.04.2025 merely posts the petitioner as Medical Specialist, C.H.C. Bhaiyathan, and does not amount to any punitive action or reduction in rank. The petitioner continues at the same station and district, and therefore, no prejudice is caused to him. Judicial review in transfer matters is limited, and unless the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or violation of any statutory provision, this Hon’ble Court would not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *******Learned State counsel submits that the circulars relied upon by the petitioner do not confer any indefeasible right upon a senior officer to claim appointment as Block Medical Officer. The principle of “seniority-cum-fitness” is applicable where regular appointment is to be made, whereas the present arrangement is purely administrative and temporary in nature. The competent authority is empowered to assign In-Charge responsibilities in administrative exigencies and in public interest. Merely because respondent No.5 is junior would not render the order illegal. 7 *******It is also contended that the earlier interim orders passed by this Court were case-specific and subject to final adjudication. Subsequently, W.P.(S) No. 5241/2024 was dismissed as infructuous and liberty was granted to challenge the fresh order. The petitioner has availed that liberty; however, no material has been placed on record to establish mala fide or lack of competence on the part of the authority. The impugned order has been issued by the competent authority within its administrative powers. In view of the above, it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents annexed in the present writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was initially holding the post of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan only as an In-Charge arrangement in addition to his substantive post. It is well settled that transfer and posting are incidents of service and an employee does not have a vested right to continue on a particular post, especially when such posting is of an officiating or In-Charge nature. At the same time, the sequence of events reflects that earlier transfer/relieving orders dated 21.08.2024 and 21.11.2024 were subjected to challenge before this Court in WPS No. 5241 of 2024 and WPS No. 8004 of 2024, and vide interim order dated 09.12.2024 passed in WPS No. 8004 of 2024, protection was granted in favour of the petitioner permitting him to discharge the duties of Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan. Thereafter, the order dated 03.01.2025 restored the petitioner to the 8 said In-Charge post. On 02.04.2025, the coordinate bench of this Court in WPS No. 5241 of 2024 granted liberty to CMHO to correct the place of posting of the writ petitioner and in compliance of the said order, the CMHO passed the order on 03.04.2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The present impugned order dated 03.04.2025 has again altered the arrangement, which has led to the present round of litigation. 7. Looking to the present scenario and the sequence of events noticed hereinabove, and considering that an interim order had earlier been passed in favour of the petitioner on 30.08.2024 in WPS No. 5241 of 2024 and on 09.12.2024 in WPS No. 8004 of 2024, though both these petitions are disposed of, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is relegated to avail an appropriate administrative remedy. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority ventilating all his grievances against the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P/1). In the event such representation is submitted, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law governing the field, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved