1 2026:CGHC:245-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 953 of 2025 Bhupendra Singh Thakur S/o Late B. S. Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o Chowbey Bandh Road, Ward No. 06, Near Parmeshwar Traders, Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 3 - District Education Officer Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.05 14:53:24 +0530 2 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order passed by Learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 13091/2025, in matter of Bhupendra Singh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other and also quash the order of dated 24.10.2025, order passed by the respondent No.-3, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.13091/2025 (Bhupendra Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been disposed of. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/writ petitioner had raised several specific and substantive grounds in the writ petition; however, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider even a single ground while dismissing the petition. It is submitted that the writ petition was founded primarily upon the State Government Circular dated 04.06.2001 and the latest Circular dated 02.09.2025 (Annexures P-2 and P-3 to the writ petition), as also the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), which have not been adverted to or discussed in the impugned order. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in treating the impugned order as a transfer order. It is contended that the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 is not a simpliciter administrative order, but is stigmatic in nature, having been issued on the basis of an alleged complaint. The order has been passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice and without holding any inquiry whatsoever. The writ petitioner has completed 26 years of unblemished service without any complaint or punishment; therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner was never informed about any complaint or the letter dated 01.10.2025, nor was any notice or opportunity of hearing afforded to the writ petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 by respondent No.3. The entire action has been taken in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order is ex facie stigmatic, as it refers to certain complaints against the writ petitioner, whereas no such complaint was ever communicated to the writ petitioner. Even the Block Education Officer has categorically informed that no complaint is pending against the writ petitioner in his office. The entire proceedings have thus been conducted behind the back of the writ petitioner, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. He next submits that similar orders issued by the District Education 4 Officer, Bastar, District Bastar were earlier challenged before this Court. Though the learned Single Judge treated those orders as transfer orders and dismissed the writ petitions, the Hon’ble Division Bench subsequently held such orders to be attachment orders and set aside the impugned orders. The present case being squarely covered by the said decision, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned orders dated 19.11.2025 as well as 24.10.2025 has been passed strictly in accordance with law and within the administrative competence of the competent authority. It is contended that the order is purely administrative in nature and does not cast any stigma upon the writ petitioner, nor does it visit him with any civil consequences. He further submits that the order in question is neither punitive nor founded upon any proved misconduct, and therefore no departmental inquiry or prior opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the writ petitioner. 8. It is submitted by learned State counsel that the policy circulars relied upon by the writ petitioner do not create any enforceable legal right, and the placement/transfer of an employee remains within the exclusive domain of the employer, especially when the same is necessitated in administrative exigency. He lastly submits that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single 5 Judge, as no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of the principles of natural justice is made out, and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 10. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “1. This Court directed the State to verify the factual matrix of the case in the memo dated 24.10.2025 by which the petitioner has been directed to report to Government Primary School Damauhapara, Rajim, Phigeshwar as certain complaints were received against him. 2. Considering the submission, at this juncture no direction can be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge if any punitive action taken against him in pursuance of complaint made against him.” 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the pleadings and documents placed on record. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. Unless the order impugned is shown to 6 suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, this Court would be slow to interfere. 12. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has not adjudicated upon the merits of the allegations or the complaint referred to in the administrative memo dated 24.10.2025, but has merely disposed of the writ petition at a preliminary stage after directing verification of the factual matrix. The learned Single Judge has consciously refrained from issuing any adverse or punitive directions against the writ petitioner and has, in fact, safeguarded his rights by granting liberty to challenge any punitive action that may be taken pursuant to the complaints, strictly in accordance with law. 13. At this stage, the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 cannot be termed as punitive or stigmatic so as to attract the mandatory requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice. The said order is in the nature of an interim administrative arrangement, passed in administrative exigency, and does not visit the writ petitioner with any civil consequences. It is a settled position of law that routine administrative orders relating to placement or reporting do not warrant judicial interference unless mala fides or statutory violations are clearly established. 14. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the State Government circulars and the Division Bench judgment dated 10.07.2024 does not advance the case of the appellant at 7 this stage, as no final determination adversely affecting the service rights of the writ petitioner has been made. The apprehensions expressed by the appellant are speculative and premature, particularly when no punitive order has yet been passed. 15. We are also in agreement with the submission of the learned State counsel that policy circulars, by themselves, do not confer an indefeasible or enforceable legal right, and matters pertaining to administrative control, posting, or temporary placement fall within the exclusive domain of the employer, subject to judicial review only in cases of proven arbitrariness or mala fide, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no perversity, arbitrariness, or error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and within the bounds of law. 17. Consequently, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu