2025:CGHC:56044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12321 of 2025 Reserved on : 29.10 .2025 Delivered on : 18.11.2025 Vikas Tiwari S/o Late Shri H.P. Tiwari Aged About 59 Years Occupation Presently Working As Assistant Grade Ii, Office Of District Education Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Committee Of Senior Secretaries Through Additional Chief Secretary Home And Jail Department Also Chairman, Committee Of Senior Secretaries Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner who is working as Assistant Grade-II has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 28.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3/Collector, Bilaspur by which he has been transferred from Office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur to Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi (Son), Block- Masturi, District- Bilaspur on ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 16:33:39 +0530 administrative ground. He has also challenged order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Committee constituted by the State Government to consider the representation of a government servant against the transfer, by which the representation preferred by the petitioner regarding his transfer, has been rejected. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfer, as such the impugned transfer order dated 28.06.2025 and memo dated 25.09.2025 by which petitioner’s representation has been rejected, are liable to be quashed by this Court. To demonstrate this fact, the petitioner has given the details of place of posting in which he has mentioned his place of posting from 1987 till today. It has also been contended that from 1987 to 1991, he was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Janjgir, from 1992 to 1999, at office of Joint Director, Bilaspur Division, from 2000-2001 at Government Higher Secondary School, Kotmikala Marwahi, from July 2001 to 2005 at Block Education Officer, Mungeli, in 2006 at office of District Education Officer, from 2009 to 2010 at office of Government Higher Secondary School Manikchouri Bilaspur, from 2010-2019 at Office of District Education Officer District Bilaspur, in 2019 Government Higher Secondary School Pachpedi District Bilaspur, from November 2022-June 2023 at office of Joint Director Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, from 14.07.2023 at Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi Bilaspur. 2. He would further submit that the petitioner was suspended on 19.07.2023 when he was posted at Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi Bilaspur and his headquarter was changed posting him at office of Joint Director, Raipur, thereafter, suspension was revoked on 10.03.2025 and the enquiry was continued. After revocation, he was temporarily posted at the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur thereafter vide impugned order, he has been transferred from Office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur to Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi (Son), Block- Masturi, Bilaspur on administrative ground. He would further submit that the State Government has framed the Transfer Policy on 05.06.2025 and according to the provisions of the said Transfer Policy normally transfer should not be made within 2 years of the earlier posting unless serious complaint has been made and on the basis of complaint any preliminary enquiry has been conducted wherein prima facie some materials are found for conducting regular enquiry then the transfer of the government servant should be done. He would further submit that only 3.5 months have been completed in the present place of posting and no complaint has been received. He would further submit that from details of place of posting mentioned by him, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer, therefore, the transfer is bad in law and would pray for quashing of the transfer order as well as the order rejecting his representation. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was pending however, the said suspension has been revoked and the petitioner has been reinstated in service. He would further submit that consequent upon reinstatement, the petitioner has been posted/transferred to the present place of posting in administrative exigency. He would further submit that the transfer order has been issued in accordance with the Transfer Policy which does not suffer from any malice or arbitrariness. He would further submit that since the order of suspension is no longer existing, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to be posted at the earlier station as transfer is an incident of service and the competent authority is empowered to post the officer wherever administrative exigency exists. He would further submit that the transfer order does not amount to punishment nor has it been passed on extraneous grounds and it is a routine administrative order issued in the normal course. He would further submit that there is no violation of statutory rule, malafide, or incompetence in issuance of the said order, therefore, the impugned order does not suffers from illegality which warrants 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 documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5. From the submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the petitioner is victim of frequent transfer and the present transfer is liable to be quashed by this Court or not? 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is victim of frequent transfer, is not based upon any factual matrix as from the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as afore-stated, it is evident that from 1992 to 1999 for 7 years, he was posted at office of Joint Director, Division Office, Bilaspur and for only 1 year, he was posted in the school and again in the office of Block Education Officer, Mungeli for 4 years from 2001-2005 and again he was posted at office of District Education Officer Bilaspur from 2006-2009 and for short period of 1 year, he was posted in school at Manikchouri Bilaspur and since 2010 to 2019, he was again posted at office of District Education Officer Bilaspur and for few months, he was posted at Government School Pachpedi, Bilaspur from 2019 but he has nowhere mentioned that when he was posted in the office of Joint Director, Bilaspur Division. Thereafter he was suspended from Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi on 19.07.2023 after his posting in the school on 14.07.2023 and during suspension, his headquarter was changed to the office of Joint Director, Raipur. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was temporarily posted at office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur where he has been directed to join at Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi Bilaspur. 7. The record of the case clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was suspended on 19.07.2023 from Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi (Son), Block- Masturi, therefore, after revocation of suspension he should have been posted to his place of posting from where he was suspended i.e. Government Higher Secondary School Loharsi (Son), Block- Masturi, as such after revocation of suspension, he was posted temporarily to the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur and thereafter vide order dated 28.06.2025, he has been posted by way of transfer to his original place of posting. 8. From the record, it is also quite vivid that the petitioner in his total service career of 38 years remained posted in the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur for 23 years and out of which 4 years at Block Education Officer, Mungeli. It means he never intend to serve in the school and always intend to remain posted in the administrative wing of the School Education Department. The posting of the petitioner according to his choice is not permissible in view of well settled position of law that no employee can insist to remain posted in a particular place of posting of his entire service period. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of India & others [(2022) 12 SCC 1], has held at paragraph 24 as under:- “24. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the transfer is against Clause 3.1 of the Transfer Policy, as such the same is liable to be quashed. This submission is liable to be rejected as it is well settled position of law that the transfer policy does not confer any indefeasible right of a government servant to remain posted at a particular place forever. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) has held in paragraphs 26 & 27 as under:- “26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the PART D requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice JS Verma (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta 24 held : “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. […] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” 27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas 25 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” ” 10. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is victim of frequent transfer, does not hold good as he has been posted 23 years in the administrative office of School Education Department and for few years at school level and the last posting order dated 25.06.2025 which has been challenged in this writ petition, his posting to the place from where he was suspended. As such, it cannot be held that the petitioner is victim of frequent transfer. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (supra), the Point determined by this Court is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 12. Accordingly, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika /Arun