1 2025:CGHC:59763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13710 of 2025 • Dipti Shendey W/o Rahul Parekar Aged About 45 Years Supervisor, Department Of Women And Child Development Department Sector-Lagra, Project- Sarkanda, Bilha -2, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Department Of Women And Child Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Senior Secretary Committee Through The Secretary, General Administration Department Govt. Of C.G. Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. The petitioner who is working as Supervisor in Department of Women and Child Development has filed this petition assailing the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 by which he has been transferred from Integrated Child Development Project, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur to Integrated Child Development Project, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj on administrative ground. The BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.12.11 11:57:17 +0530 2 petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the State Level Committee by which petitioner’s representation against transfer order has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 1 has been transferred from Rajnandgaon to Bilaspur on account of administrative exigency. He would further submit that vide order dated 21.08.20225 the petitioner within 03 years has been again transferred. He would further submit that the petitioner has some personal difficulty and her husband is employed in the Bank of Maharashtra. He would further submit that she has 07 years child who is studying in Delhi Public School, Bilaspur and the petitioner has narrated all the difficulty faced by her in the representation preferred by her before the Committee but the Committee without assigning any reasons has rejected the same and would pray for quashing of the transfer order as well as order rejecting the representation. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already remain posted in the present place of posting for about 03 years which is minimum tenure which a government servant is entitled to hold at a particular place which she has already exhausted and as such she has been transferred. He would further submit that the petitioner’s personal difficulty is routing phenomena and in every family the same situation crops up, therefore, it cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere in the transfer as transfer is an incident of service and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has already remain posted for three years in the present place of posting and the personal difficulty is not so severe, it may not be a ground to interfere in the transfer order by this Court, as transfer in an incident of service. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that the transfer policy does not confer any right over the government servant to post in a particular place of posting as per his/her 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. The petitioner has remained at present place of posting for about 3 years as such this Court does not incline to interfere in the impugned transfer order. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason has been assigned while rejecting the representation as such the impugned order is illegal, the same deserves to be rejected as by transferring the petitioner she will not suffer any civil consequence warranting interference by this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika