1 / 2 2026:CGHC:9236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1952 of 2026 Meraj Mohammad S/o Shri Gulam Mohammad Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Veterinary Filed Officer At Veterinary Hospital, Ranitarai, Block And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Livestock Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Committee Of Senior Secretaries, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur At Baster, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 23/02/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of transfer dated 30.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1), (so far as concerned to the petitioner and private respondent) and Annexure-P/2 (so far as concerned to the petitioner) passed by the respondent No. 1. ” 2 / 2 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been transferred from one schedule area to another schedule area, therefore, transfer of petitioner be interdicted. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh about 70% area of the State is schedule area. Petitioner has been relieved from the place of posting on 30.06.2026 and private respondent has already joined in place of petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 5. Petitioner is posted in the office of Veterinary Hospital, Ranitarai, Block and District: Rajnandgaon and he has been transferred to the office of Veterinary Dispensary, Dhawalpur, District: Gariyaband on administrative ground. On being asked to learned counsel for petitioner, he fairly stated that petitioner is working on the present place of posting since last eight years. It is not a case of petitioner that petitioner has submitted any application for transfer to any non-schedule area and without considering the the said application, he has again been transferred to the schedule area. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of transfer. Accordingly, this petition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE