1 2026:CGHC:1589-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 980 of 2025 Mithlesh Donde S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Donde Aged About 58 Years (Add. Collector) R/o Bhatapara P S Bhatapara City District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Upper Secretary, General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Add-Chief Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department/urban Administration And Development/revenue And Disaster (Apda) Management Department/tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 4 - The Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 12 .0 1 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 10.11.2025 (Mithlesh Donde vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12716 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant was initially appointed in the respondent department as Naib Tehsildar and, through honest and continuous service, was promoted up to the post of Joint Collector, on which he is presently working. From the very beginning of his service, the appellant has predominantly been posted in Scheduled Areas, including districts such as Jashpur, Surguja, Bastar, Bijapur and other notified Scheduled Areas, and has continuously served there for more than eight years. Despite such prolonged service, the respondent authorities repeatedly issued transfer orders posting the appellant again and again to Scheduled Areas, contrary to the State Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015, which provides for rotation and specifically exempts officers above the age of 55 years from further posting in inaccessible Scheduled 3 Areas, as far as practicable. 4. Aggrieved by repeated transfers to Scheduled Areas, the appellant submitted representations citing the transfer policy and his personal and family difficulties. When the transfer order dated 23.05.2022 transferring him from Balodabazar–Bhatapara to Bijapur was issued, the appellant approached this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 4053/2022, wherein interim protection was granted and directions were issued to decide his representation. However, the representation was rejected without proper consideration, leading to another writ petition WP(S) No. 5308/2022, in which this Hon’ble Court stayed the impugned transfer. After final hearing on 08.05.2025, the Court directed the respondents not to insist on implementation of the said transfer while granting liberty to pass a fresh order based on administrative exigency. 5. Pursuant to the said liberty, the respondents issued a fresh transfer order dated 30.07.2025, again transferring the appellant from Balodabazar–Bhatapara to Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, a Scheduled Area, without considering the earlier judicial orders or the transfer policy. The appellant again submitted representations and approached this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 9568/2025, where directions were issued to the Transfer Committee to objectively decide his grievance. Despite this, the appellant’s representation was rejected on 16.10.2025 on vague administrative grounds, leading to dismissal of WP(S) No. 12716/2025 on 10.11.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the 4 appellant filed WPS No.12716 of 2025, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ appellant was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside as it has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of facts, law and pleadings. The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, failing to deal with the specific grounds raised by the appellant, and therefore suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Single Judge also failed to examine the illegality in the impugned administrative order dated 16.10.2025, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the learned Single Judge further erred in upholding the transfer order dated 30.07.2025 and the consequential order dated 16.10.2025, which were passed without considering the relevant statutory provisions and the State Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015. The appellant had specifically sought a direction for amendment of the transfer order and posting in a non-scheduled area, which relief was neither considered nor dealt with. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant has already rendered long years of service in Scheduled Areas and is presently about 58 years of age, making his continued posting in Scheduled Areas contrary to the policy itself. He also submits that the learned Single Judge also ignored the binding clauses 1.3 and 1.5 of the transfer policy, 5 which mandate rotation after completion of the prescribed tenure in Scheduled Areas and grant protection to officers above 55 years of age from posting in inaccessible Scheduled Areas as far as practicable. Repeated and continuous transfers of the appellant to Scheduled Areas are therefore illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the learned Single Judge failed to properly consider the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in WP(S) No. 176/2020 (Dhanush Singh Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh), making the impugned judgment unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.12716 of 2025 vide order dated 10.11.2025, holding that transfer is an incident of service and that no government servant has any vested or enforceable right to remain posted at a particular place of his choice. The learned Single Judge has further held that the State transfer policy does not confer any indefeasible right upon 6 the appellant, that the appellant had remained posted at Balodabazar for more than six years which itself exceeds the normal tenure, and that neither the transfer order dated 30.07.2025 nor the order dated 16.10.2025 rejecting the representation suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Others v. Union of India & Others, the learned Single Judge concluded that the transfer was made on administrative exigency, involved no civil consequences, and did not warrant judicial interference, and accordingly affirmed the action of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra