1 2025:CGHC:6833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1034 of 2025 1 - Dr. Tushar Chandravanshi S/o Shri D.K. Chandravanshi Aged About 32 Years R/o District Hospital Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Health Services Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical Health Officer District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Civil Surgeon District Hospital Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2025 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 issue a suitable writ, order or suitable direction and to quash the impugned order dated 09.09.24 (Annexure P/1) and to direct the respondent authorities to give the posting to the petitioner at Primary Health Centre, Lanjoda District Kondagaon (C.G.) in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.09.24 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner who is posted at Primary Health Centre Lanjoda Block Farasgaon District Kondagaon (C.G.) has been attached to the District Hospital Kondagaon on the basis of recommendation made by the Collector without their being any transfer order 3 which is illegal. He further submits that the attachment order cannot be passed as the attachment has been banned by the Circular of the State Government dated 04.06.2001 and 25.04.2023. 3. The prayer of the petitioner has not been opposed by the learned State counsel. The learned counsel for the State submits that it is an internal arrangement for better administration of work and it cannot be termed as attachment order. 4. Be that it may be, looking to the Circular of the State Government dated 04.06.2001 and 25.04.2023, passed by the State Government, the impugned order seems to be an attachment order. Accordingly, the order dated 09.09.2024 is hereby quashed, however, the State is at liberty to pass appropriate order in respect of posting of the petitioner by an appropriate order. 5. Accordingly, with this observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat