1 2025:CGHC:51567-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 749 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Netam S/o Shri Halku Ram Netam Aged About 42 Years R/o- Hingalajin Mandir Ghera, Abdul Kalam Ward, Jagdalpur, Baster, District- Baster At Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue, Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Jagdalpur, District- Baster (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Tahsil- Bakawand, District Baster (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.16 17:04:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.10.2025 1. Heard Shri Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate learned State counsel. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPS No. 10527 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant, a Patwari, was earlier posted at P.H.N.-10, Pahurbail, Tahsil Karpawand, where he completed about five years of service. On administrative grounds, respondent No. 2 issued a transfer order dated 10.07.2025, transferring him to P.H.N.-09, Kosmi, Tahsil Bakawand, which he joined on 18.07.2025. After about one month at Kosmi, respondent No. 3 issued another transfer order, posting him to P.H.N.-05, Chhindgaon, without the approval of respondent No. 2. The appellant contends that this subsequent transfer was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and malafide, 3 particularly given the short duration of his previous posting, while it is an undisputed fact that the Head Quarters of P.H.N.-10, Pahurbail; P.H.N.-09, Kosmi; and P.H.N.-05, Chhindgaon are Pahurbail, Kosmi, and Chhindgaon, respectively. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “5. True, it is that the petitioner has been transferred from Tahsil Karpawand to Tahsil Bakawand vide order dated 10.07.2025 and he joined there at Bakawand Tahsil on 18.07.2025. However, it transpires from the order dated 21.08.2025, he was assigned duties from Patwari Halka No. 9 to Patwari Halka No. 5, Chhindgaon on the administrative exigency and smooth functioning of the work of Patwari. Only the charge of Patwari Halka number changed, it cannot be considered to be a frequent transfer from one place to another and thereby, I do not find any perversity or illegality in assigning the duties of Patwari Halka No. 5, Chhindgaon to the petitioner by the order dated 21.08.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3. 4 6. Accordingly, there is no merits in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that only the Patwari Halka number changed, and it does not constitute a frequent transfer. He contends that the order dated 21.08.2025 changed not only the Halka number but also the Tahsil and Head Quarter of the appellant, from Kosmi to Chhindgaon, which amounts to a transfer under Rule 2(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Joining Time) Rules, 1982. The counsel further submits that the appellant, being a Patwari, is generally posted in different Halkas during his service, and changing Halka along with Head Quarter within a short span clearly constitutes a frequent transfer, which was overlooked by the learned Single Judge. He also relied on a similar earlier case (WPS 9895/2025) where frequent transfer was recognized, arguing that treating the appellant’s case differently violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submits that both the learned Single Judge’s order and the order dated 21.08.2025 are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes and have submitted that vide order dated 21.08.2025 5 only the Patwari Halka number has been changed. On administrative exigency he was assigned duties from Patwari Halka No. 9, Kosmi to Patwari Halka No. 5, Chhindgaon, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. On perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the appellant was initially transferred from Tahsil Karpawand to Tahsil Bakawand vide order dated 10.07.2025 and joined at Bakawand on 18.07.2025. Subsequently, by order dated 21.08.2025, he was assigned duties from Patwari Halka No. 9 to Patwari Halka No. 5, Chhindgaon, in view of administrative exigency and for smooth functioning of Patwari work. 9. It is apparent that only the Halka number and minor administrative allocation changed, and this cannot be construed as a frequent transfer or any infringement of service conditions. No material illegality or perversity is shown in the action of Respondent No. 3, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The Collector/Joint Collector/Sub- Divisional Officer are 6 competent to transfer the Patwaris within their Districts as per the administration and exigency of the work and it is for them to deploy the Patwaris according to his administrative exigency which this Court shall normally not interfere unless there is any illegality, favouritism or nepotism is existed which is not available in the present facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the fact that the transfer is an exigency of service and no government employee can insist to remain posted at a particular place and it is the Government to post the employee looking to its exigency. 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib