1 2026:CGHC:5917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1230 of 2026 1 - Naveen Prakash Kannoje S/o Shri Gore Lal Kannoje, Aged About 56 Years Posted As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Veterinary Hospital Tirga, Department, Of Animal Husbandry, District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Services , Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Through The Chairman Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (As Constituted Vide Order Dated 10-06-2025 By The Government Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Raipur ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 03.02.2026 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, has been transferred vide order dated 30.06.2025 from Veterinary Hospital Tirga, District Durg, to Artificial Insemination Sub-Center, Sarangpal, District Kanker, on his own expenses. Though the petitioner had submitted an application seeking his transfer from Veterinary Hospital Tirga, District Durg, to some other office situated within District Durg, therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred by mentioning it as on his own expenses. If the petitioner was to be considered for transfer on his own expenses, then he ought to have been transferred to the place mentioned in the application and not to any other place. He further submits that transferring the petitioner to a place other than that pleaded in the application would cause loss to the petitioner, as he would not be entitled to the allowances which are normally granted to employees transferred on administrative grounds. This aspect has not been considered by the Committee constituted under the transfer policy. He contended that the wife of the petitioner is also a government servant and is working as an Assistant Teacher within District Durg, and according to the policy formulated by the State Government, as far as possible, the husband and wife are to be posted at nearby places. However, the posting of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order is at a distance of about 200 kilometers. Lastly, he contended that the child of the petitioner is a student of Class XI and is passing 3 through a crucial stage of his career; therefore, the guardianship of the petitioner is very much required, which has also not been considered by the Committee constituted under the transfer policy. The application of the petitioner, along with those of other employees, has been rejected, which clearly shows non- application of mind to the grounds raised in the representation. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that the petitioner has been transferred on his own expenses, are based on the application submitted by the petitioner, though he may not have opted for the specific place to which he has been transferred. She further contended that the petitioner has been posted at the same place since 2008 and has thereby completed more than 18 years of service in the present district. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner is a government servant and is governed by the service rules. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding a State Cadre post, which is also a transferable post. Transfer is an incidence of service. The petitioner cannot seek his posting at a place of his own choice when no extraordinary circumstances are available to him. In the present case, it is not the contention of petitioner that he or any of his family members is suffering from any severe disease requiring treatment at a headquarters having 4 better medical facilities. The wife of the petitioner is still working and is capable of taking care of the child studying in school, being employed as a teacher. 5. 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 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.” 6. 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 5 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.” 7. 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 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.” 8. 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. 6 9. 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. 10. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submits afresh representation before the appropriate authority for his posting at appropriate place. 11. Considering the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, petitioner will be at liberty to file afresh representation before the appropriate authority. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Saxena