1 2026:CGHC:1397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 162 of 2026 1. Aarif Dhebar S/o Shri Md. Ibrahim Dhebar Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Bably Typing, Schoolpara, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 497335 ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2. Deputy Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 3. Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Block- 03, Second/ Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 4. Commissioner Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 5. Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 6. Under Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.01.12 18:16:30 +0530 2 7. The Chairman Transfer Committee, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492002 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- “1.That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the instant Petition and issue Order(s)/ Direction(s) to call for the entire records relating to Petitioner's case for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Petition and issue appropriate Order(s)/ Direction(s) to the respondent authorities to set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-1). 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Petition and issue appropriate Order(s)/ Direction(s) to the respondent authorities to set aside/ quash the impugned order/recommendation dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P-2). 4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Petition and issue appropriate Order(s)/ Direction(s) to the respondent authorities to set aside/ quash the impugned Transfer order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-3). 3 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other appropriate Relief(s)/Order(s)/ Direction(s) which it deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who is working on the post of Laboratory Technician and posted at Ramanuj Pratap Singhdeo Shaskiye Snatakotta Mahavidyalay, Baikunthpur District Koria, is transferred to Naving Shaskiye Mahavidyalaya Bortara, District Bemetara. Aggrieved with which petitioner initially filed writ petition bearing WPS No.7860/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.7.2025 permitting petitioner to submit representation before the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy and also granted interim relief to petitioner for a period of two weeks. Petitioner thereafter submitted representation before the Committee against his transfer raising all grounds including the ground that petitioner is a physically disabled employee, his son and daughter are studying in Central School Baikunthpur; Central School is not available in nearby vicinity of transferred place of petitioner and reliever has not been posted in place of petitioner and as such, transfer of petitioner is in violation of Clause 3.7 of the Transfer Policy. The Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy though taken note of grounds as raised in representation by petitioner, but did not deal with them and rejected the 4 representation mentioning that there is no violation of transfer policy. Order rejecting representation of petitioner against his transfer is a non-speaking order, hence, liable to be interdicted. He placed reliance on decisions in cases of Justice Sunand Bhandare Foundation vs Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 383 and Netram Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 81. 3. Learned State Counsel opposing submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that so far as submission of learned counsel for petitioner regarding violation of Clause 3.7 of Transfer Policy is concerned, the transfer policy is merely a guidelines issued by the State Government and it has no statutory force. Therefore, mere non-transfer or non-posting of the reliever in place of petitioner will not affect transfer of petitioner. He placed reliance on decisions in cases of Union of India vs S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4SCC 357; Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of UP and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150. He also contended that children of petitioner are studying in Class-III and IX, they can very well prosecute their studies in any other good school available at the transferred placed. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 5 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that considering that interim protection was granted to petitioner by this Court; no reliever is posted in place of petitioner till date; petitioner is still continuing at his earlier place of posting i.e. Ramanuj Pratap Singhdeo Shaskiye Snatakotta Mahavidyalay, Baikunthpur District Koria, and further considering that final exams of children of petitioner is going to commence within short time, petitioner may be granted some interim protection for limited period i.e. till final examination of children of petitioner is over so that their studies may not be affected in any manner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. Challenge in this writ petition is to transfer of petitioner who is a physically challenged employee working as Laboratory Technician in the college. During course of arguments, when the Court posed a question to learned counsel for petitioner as to since when petitioner is posted in Baikunthpur, he fairly submits that though he is not aware about specific date, but according to his information, petitioner is posted in Baikunthpur for last more than 03 years. 7. It is well understood that transfer of a government servant, who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to another, is a normal incidence of service 6 and such employee cannot claim, as a matter of right, that he/she should be retained in a particular place as long as he/she desires. The interference with the same is only required when the same smacks of mala fide or in violation of any statutory rule. 8. In case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani reported in 1989 AIR 1433 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 9. In the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, it was observed 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 any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it........." 10. In case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 7 "4. ....Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service .." 11. In case of Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, it was held thus: "8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; SCC p. 406, para 7).” 12. Recently, in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 (Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 06.09.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; 8 "it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement.” 13. In the instant case, petitioner has not pleaded in writ petition that his transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules, the twin grounds available for interference. Petitioner has been transferred from Baikunthpur, District Koriya to Bortara, District Bemetara on administrative exigency. Petitioner has been posted at the present place of posting since last more than three years and thus completed his normal tenure. As such, he cannot say that he has been arbitrarily transferred. The petitioner has no right to remain posted at a particular place for indefinite period. Transfer being an incident of service and the order of transfer of petitioner having been issued in view of administrative exigency, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. It is for the employer to consider which employee is to be posted at which place and this decision is not to be interfered by the Court unless shown to be an act with mala fide. Transfer policy is not to be read as a statute. 14. So far as studies of children of petitioner in a particular school i.e. Central School, is concerned, petitioner can admit his children in any good school located nearby the place of his 9 transfer. Non-availability of a particular school at the place of transfer cannot be a ground to interfere with transfer order, more so when it is passed on administrative exigency. 15. In case of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation (supra), which was relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, the subject matter in issue was reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various universities to the persons with disabilities in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Whereas, in case of Net Ram Yadav (supra), the issued involved was down-gradation in seniority of an employee with disabilities on his transfer to his home district pursuant to Circular issued by the State Government. In case at hand, petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer made in administrative exigency. Thus, both the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner being distinguishable on facts are of no help to petitioner. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of petitioner as also the order passed by the Committee rejecting representation of petitioner against his transfer. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10 17. However, considering the fact that petitioner’s daughter is studying in Class-III and his son is studying in Class-IX, their final exam are going to start within a short span of time and further considering that till date petitioner has not been relieved from his present place of posting to join at transferred place, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent authorities concerned are directed not to disturb place of posting of petitioner and to maintain status quo, as it exists today, with respect to posting of petitioner till 31.3.2026. 18. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-