1 2026:CGHC:21934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4031 of 2026 Dr. Umesh Vishawas S/o Late Shri Pramod Vishwas Aged About 38 Years Posted As Medical Officer, In Community Health Centre Abhanpur, Block- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Health Services Chhattisgarh, Vikas Bhavan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Secretary General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Senior Secretaries Committee (Transfer Committee), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 11/05/2026 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 26/06/2025 Annexure P-1, by which, the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Community Health Centre Abhanpur Block Abhanpur to Govt. District Hospital Sukma, District Sukma. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move fresh representation before the Transfer Committee and the said Committee was directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner and further ordered that till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel by referring Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy submits that the Transfer Committee was constituted, thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation, which was decided against the petitioner and for which, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government issued the Transfer Policy, 2025 on 05.06.2025, prescribing guidelines for transfer of employees. Clause 3.6 of the said policy provides that transfer may be effected only in cases where excess employees are posted. In the present case, there are only two doctors, and in case of relieving of the petitioner, only one Doctor will remain. There is already shortage of staff at the present place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, on the same issue, the Transfer Committee has already considered Clause 3 3.6 of the Transfer Policy in respect of similarly situated employee, and his representation was duly considered and allowed. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is in clear violation of Clause 3.6 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that once the Transfer Committee constituted by the State Government has considered and decided the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that it is for the Government to decide where and when doctors are to be posted at different hospitals, based on the requirement and population of the concerned district or the place where the hospital is located. Hence, the writ petition may liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From a perusal of Clause 3.6 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, it is evident that the said clause lays down the general policy of the State Government. However, insofar as the posting of doctors are concerned, the Government is competent to transfer and post them as per the requirement of a particular area, and such administrative decisions cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, in the present case, the claim of the 4 petitioner has already been considered by the Committee constituted by the State Government, and the same has been rejected. 6. It is a settled law that transfer is an incident of Service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It is also well settled that 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. 7. It is a settled law in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.L.. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court that transfer is an incidence of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Therefore, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. As far as the submission made by the petitioner that the transfer order has been passed in violation of the Transfer Policy is concerned, the Transfer policy is a mere guidelines and it is the trite law that the guidelines per se, do not partake to the character of statute.(See: Poonal Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 2007 13 SCC 154) 5 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep