1 2026:CGHC:2695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 482 of 2026 1 - Kamal Narayan Tiwari S/o Baldau Prasad Tiwari Aged About 49 Years R/o Near House Of Ex-Sarpanch Jwala Deshmukh, Kolihapuri, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sandeep Kumar Chandrakar Rural Health Coordinator, Sub-Health Centre, Bhansuli (R) Primary Health Centre, Gadadih, Block- Patan, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Transfer Committee Under The Policy Regulating Transfers Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (The cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. N. Raha Roy, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby representation made by the petitioner qua his transfer has been BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 rejected by the respondent No.5 without assigning any reasons thereof in a most mechanical manner. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the transfer of the petitioner back to his earlier place of posting as Rural Health Organizer (RHO) at the office of the respondent No.3 i.e. District Malaria Officer, District – Durg (C.G.). 10.3 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and command the respondents for releasing the salary of the petitioner for July, 2026 to October 2026 with appropriate interest as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner aggrieved with the order of transfer, has submitted representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy raising grounds, however, while deciding the representation, the Committee has not considered the grounds raised by petitioner in an objective manner. He also submits that wife of petitioner is also a government servant and posted as Teachers (LB) in District – Durg. However, by the impugned transfer, petitioner has been transferred from District Maleria Office, Durg to Sub-Health Center, Bhansuli (R), Primary Health Center, Gadadih, Block – Patan in contravention of the transfer policy. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner has not specifically pleaded that as to when he was posted at the present place of posting and since when he was being working. She however, contended that Clause 3.13 which is part of the transfer policy can not be claimed as matter of 3 right. The policy is formulated by the State Government for its own convenience. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of transfer order Annexure P-5 dated 30.06.2025 would show that along with petitioner 32 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. Transfer of petitioner cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. Petitioner is holding transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service. Petitioner has not specifically stated as to when he was posted at the present place of posting and since when he was being working. 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 “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 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 5 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 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 58 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. Writ petition being sans merit is is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. However, this order will not come in the way of petitioner to file an application for posting of both (husband and wife) at one place. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram