1 2026:CGHC:7279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1579 of 2026 Ravikant Amde S/o Shri Arun Kumar Amde, Aged About 41 Years Patwari P.S. No.-15, Chhiraha, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission Of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi Pin Code 110001 2 - Chief Election Officer, D.K.S. Bhawan Purana Mantralaya Premises, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Land Record Branch District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. 5 - Satish Chandrakar Patwari P.C. No. 02 Rabeli Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate alongwith Ms. Pooja Sinha and Shruti Rai, Advocates SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.11 10:32:36 +0530 2 For Respondent No.1/ UoI : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 10/02/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 03/02/2026, whereby he has been transferred from P.H. No. 15 Chhirha Tahsil, Kawardha to P.H. No. 02 Rabeli Tahsil, Kawardha. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the petitioner has been subjected to repeated and frequent transfers within a very short span of time without any administrative exigency. He further submits that the petitioner was transferred from one Patwari Circle to another even for a single day and thereafter again within a few months, which clearly reflects non-application of mind and causes grave hardship. It is further submitted that such frequent transfers, particularly when the petitioner was entrusted with an ongoing survey work for constitution of a village, are punitive in effect and liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel also submits that private respondent No.5, who has been posted in place of the petitioner, has been assigned the duty of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) by the Election Commission of India and, therefore, could not have been transferred at this stage. In support of his contention, 3 learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment dated 28.02.2012 passed by this Court in WPS No.5005 of 2011 (Uttam Chandra Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), wherein frequent transfers have been deprecated. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is not a transfer order but merely an order of work assignment of Patwaris who are posted at Chhirha Tahsil, Kawardha to Rabeli Tahsil, Kawardha, which is situated at a distance of approximately 22 KMs. Learned counsel further submit that the order has been issued on account of administrative exigency and the change of place of posting between the petitioner and respondent No.5, by itself, does not establish any mala fide intention or arbitrariness. Therefore, it is contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herewith. 5. Upon examination of the impugned order dated 03.02.2026, it is apparent that the said order is not a transfer order governed by the general transfer policy of the State Government, but an order of work assignment within the same district. Consequently, the transfer policy contained in the circular dated 05.06.2025 is not attract to the facts of the present case. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned order is contrary to any statutory provision or policy of the State Government. 4 6. So far as the contention relating to the assignment of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) work to private respondent No.5 assigned by the Election Commission of India is concerned, it is to be noted that the private respondent has not challenged his posting. The petitioner has no locus to question the assignment of work to the private respondent, and such contention cannot be made a ground to assail the impugned order dated 03.02.2026. 7. In view of the above and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar