1 2025:CGHC:51905 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12187 of 2025 Ratnesh Bhadoriya S/o - H.S. Bhadoriya Aged About 50 Years Posted As Patwari, P.H. No. - 07, Village Jevera, Tahsil - Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries Department Of General Administration Room No. 6, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Land Records District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Shatrughan Mishra Presently Posted As Patwari At P.H.N. - 07, Village - Jevera, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by Committee of Senior Secretaries by which the recommendation has been made for rejection of representation made by the petitioner against the transfer order dated 12.08.2025 passed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.10.17 17:49:04 +0530 2 the Collector whereby he has been transferred from Tahsil Durg to Tahsil Patan. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Durg by which respondent No. 5 has been given charge of Patwari in place of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner from the date of his joining has been posted as Patwari at Durg and vide order dated 12.08.2025 he has been transferred to Tahsil Patan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 5/Shatrughan Mishra has been granted additional charge of Patwari in place of the petitioner which shows that petitioner has been transferred with malafide intention. He would further submit that the petitioner’s wife is also working in the School Education Department at Tahsil Durg as such the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy which provides for posting of husband and wife at same place and would pray for setting aside the impugned orders as aforestated. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that transfer is exigency of service and no government servant can insist to remain posted a particular place of posting forever therefore, on this factual and legal position, he would pray for dismissal of the instant petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that petitioner has been transferred after two years of posting at the present place and he has 3 been transferred within the same District not the another District which does not debar the Collector to transfer the petitioner. Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that transfer is an incident of service and transfer policy does not confer any right over the government servant to post in a particular place of posting as per his choice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SK Nausad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other [(2022) 12 SCC 1] has examined the entire law on the subject with regard to transfer of government servant and has held that it is not a matter of right of the government servant to be remain posted at present place of posting for entire service period. In view of the above, this Court does not incline to interfere in the impugned order passed by the respondents/authorities. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika