1 / 5 2026:CGHC:1850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 290 of 2026 • Dilip Patre S/o Mulchand Patre Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, District Veterinary Hospital, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present Address - Ward No. 15, Quarter No. G-11, New Civil Line Rajnandgaon Distt.- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002 2. Director Animal Husbandry Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492001 3. Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Rajnandgaon Division, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Gariaband Division, Gariaband (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order/memo dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure - P/1) transfer order (File No. ESTB-102(3)/227/2025) passed by the respondent and as well as the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Transfer Committee (Annexure - P/2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to render her services at the PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 present place of posting i.e. District Veterinary Hospital, Rajnandgaon (C.G). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the order Annexure P- 1, petitioner who is holding post of Asst. Veterinary Doctor and posted at District Veterinary Hospital, Rajnandgaon has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Mainpur, District Gariyaband. Against the order of transfer dated 30.06.2025 petitioner has filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 7813/2025 which was disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit representation before the Transfer Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy. Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before the committee raising the grounds as available to him including the ground that wife of petitioner is also a Government servant and is posted in Industrial Health and Security Department, Rajnandgaon. He submits that according to Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy husband and wife are to be posted at same place. The committee constituted under the Transfer Policy however without appreciating the grounds raised in the representation has dismissed the representation vide recommendation dated 15.12.2025 and therefore this writ petition is filed. He contended that decision of the committee is without application of mind on the grounds raised by petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner is transferred on administrative exigency. Petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at the place where his wife is posted or an employee get a right that both husband and wife to be posted at same place, but in policy it is specifically mentioned in the said clause that as far as possible husband and wife can be posted at same place. 3 / 5 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with petition. 5. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, perusal of documents enclosed along with writ petition would show that petitioner has not specifically stated as to when he was posted at the present place of posting and since when he was being working. Perusal of transfer order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2025 would show that along with petitioner 62 other similarly situated employees have also been transferred on administrative exigency. Petitioner is holding a transferable post, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at a particular place. Petitioner has been transferred from one Veterinary Hospital to another Veterinary Hospital and he has been placed on the same post. Transfer of petitioner cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. Petitioner is holding transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service. 6. Further submission of counsel for petitioner that the according to Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy husband and wife, who are in Government service, are to be posted at one place, is also not sustainable because Clause 3.13 talks of if the wife/husband of a government servant requests a posting at the same station, efforts should be made to provide them with a posting at the same station, keeping administrative convenience and public interest in mind. No government servant will have the right to receive such a posting, but his/her request will be considered sympathetically by the department and a decision will be made. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 659] has considered the issue with regard to transfer of the government servant and held thus: “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has 4 / 5 no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.” 8. In the case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357], Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, the husband and the wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.” 9. In the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors Vs. Durgesh Kuwar [(2020) 19 SCC 46]. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the transfer of the senior officer of different sector banking institution has observed thus :- “17. We must begin our analysis of the rival submissions by adverting to the settled principle that transfer is an exigency of service. An employee cannot have a choice of postings. Administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the manner in which the transfer policy has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular may not in itself confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus. Unless an order of transfer is established to be malafide or contrary to a statutory provision or has been issued by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court in exercise of judicial review would not be inclined to 5 / 5 interfere. These principles emerge from the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants in support of their submissions and to which we have already made a reference above. There can be no dispute about the position in law.” 10. Petitioner could not able to make out a case that his transfer is in violation of statutory rules, or of mala fide. The policy framed for transfer is not to be read as statute. In the impugned order of transfer total 62 employees of the department have been transferred on administrative exigency. 11. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case, decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of transfer Annexure P-1 so far as it relates to petitioner. Writ petition being sans merit is is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE