1 2025:CGHC:11909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 886 of 2025 1 - Smt. Amrita Bada W/o Rajkumar Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post Tapkara, Police Station - Tapkara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Smt. Gangotri Shringar Posted As Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Lawakera, Janpad Panchayat, Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 Annexure P/1 so far it relates to placement of petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue at her present place of posting. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, is that, writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby without there being any administrative exigency, the respondent 3 No. 2 has transferred the services of petitioner from Gram Panchayat, Amaldiha to Gram Panchayat, Lawakera, only to accommodate the respondent No. 4 in place of petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has issued guidelines in respect of services of Panchayat Karmis/Secretaries and Clause- 8 of the said guidelines/circular provides that the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat shall transfer the services of Panchayat Secretary only after recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, but in the instant case, there is no approval or recommendation made by the respondent No. 3 for transferring the services of petitioner, therefore the impugned transfer order is contrary to the policy/guidelines issued by the respondent no. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is arbitrary and against all canon of administrative law. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 has issued guidelines in respect of services of Panchayat Karmis/ Secretaries and Clause-8 of the said guidelines/ circular provides that the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat shall transfer the services of Panchayat Secretary only after recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned transfer order may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the 4 submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case that the Panchayat employees can be transferred within the district on administrative and voluntary basis, if necessary, after proper investigation on the basis of complaints of village panchayat, Panchayat employees can be transferred by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat on the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Voluntary transfer can also be done by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat on the recommendation of the Janpad Panchayat. Hence, the impugned transfer order deserves to be set aside and quashed. 7. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 20.01.2025, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The order of stay granted by this Court on 30.01.2025 with regard to posting of the petitioner stands modified and the stay order will be continued. 8. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat