1 2025:CGHC:55759-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 825 of 2025 Virendra Kumar Patle S/o Shri Suritram Aged About 41 Years Currently Working At Government Schedule Caste Boys Hostel Parsadih, Block- Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Department, Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) 4. Collector Tribal Development, Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.17 17:42:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12045 of 2025 (Virendra Kumar Patle vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was initially appointed in the Teacher cadre and, in the year 2009, his services came to be absorbed as Hostel Superintendent at Government Scheduled Caste Boys’ Hostel, Parsadih, Block Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.). Since such absorption, the appellant has continuously discharged duties as Hostel Superintendent for more than 15 years. It is urged that the respondent authorities issued a communication dated 10.06.2025, initiating counselling/posting of Hostel Superintendents promoted from D-grade to C-grade in the years 2022, 2023 and 2025. While issuing the said communication, the respondents erroneously 3 treated the appellant’s place of posting as vacant and consequently proceeded to post newly promoted employees over the appellant’s existing position, without considering his long-standing service. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that aggrieved by the arbitrary approach of the respondents, the appellant preferred WPS No. 9021/2025 before this Court. Vide order dated 04.08.2025, the respondents were directed to consider and decide the appellant’s representation in accordance with law. Pursuant to such direction, the respondents rejected the appellant’s representation by order dated 21.08.2025. According to the appellant, the rejection order is cryptic, non-speaking, arbitrary, and in disregard of applicable rules. Challenging the said rejection, the appellant further instituted WPS No.10726/2025, which remains pending consideration before the learned Single Bench. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents issued order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P/5 in the writ petition) transferring the appellant to Pre-Matric Scheduled Caste Boys’ Hostel, Thathari, Block Jaijaipur. Shortly thereafter, by an amended order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/6 in the writ petition), the appellant was again shifted and posted to Pre-Matric Scheduled Caste Boys’ Hostel, Kachanda, Block Jaijaipur. It is contended that these frequent and abrupt changes disturb administrative continuity and cause unwarranted hardship to the appellant, who has been performing duties efficiently for 4 over 15 years. The writ petition challenging the impugned transfer order, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.10.2025, prompting the present writ appeal. 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that (i) WPS No. 10726/2025 arising out of the same subject-matter was pending consideration; (ii) the impugned orders were issued in haste and without following due process; and (iii) the appellant possesses long and unblemished experience as Hostel Superintendent, and therefore, ought not to have been subjected to frequent reshuffling. It is further argued that the transfer order dated 08.09.2025 is devoid of administrative exigency, unsupported by any complaint, and passed with a mala fide intent to inconvenience the appellant. 7. Learned State counsel, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, submits that the transfer has been made within the same Block and there is no legal infirmity warranting interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the documents placed on record. 9. The appellant’s challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the order dated 08.09.2025, whereby he, then posted at Pre-Matric Scheduled Caste Boys’ Hostel, Thathari, Block Jaijaipur, came to be transferred to Pre-Matric Scheduled Caste Boys’ Hostel, Kachanda, Block Jaijaipur. 10. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the appellant 5 has been transferred within the same Block. A transfer within the same administrative unit, involving no change in cadre, status, service conditions, or significant hardship, ordinarily does not fall within the category of transfers warranting judicial review. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service, and the scope of interference is narrow, confined to cases of mala fides, violation of statutory provisions, or demonstrable arbitrariness. The appellant has failed to establish any such ground. The mere pendency of another writ petition does not, by itself, create a legal bar against issuance of administrative transfer orders, particularly when such orders do not prejudice substantive rights of the employee. 11. We find that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the legal position and the factual matrix while dismissing the writ petition. No error, much less any jurisdictional error or perversity, is discernible in the impugned order. The transfer being intra-block and not shown to be vitiated by malice or illegality, no interference is warranted by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan