1 2026:CGHC:21571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3296 of 2026 Oshin Rani Singh D/o Late Dhirendra Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 14 Ghutaripara Kasaniya, Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests (P C C F) Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Divisional Forest Officer (D F O) Research And Extension Forest Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08/05/2026 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the transfer order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Division Korba to Division Pendra. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.05.09 11:07:59 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is serving as a Forest Guard (Vanrakshak) at Korba, had lodged complaints dated 05.03.2026 against certain departmental officials regarding alleged irregularities, pursuant to which enquiry proceedings were initiated by the department. It is submitted that shortly thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 shifting the petitioner from Korba to Pendra on a temporary basis without assigning any specific reason. According to learned counsel, the said action is retaliatory in nature and has been taken to victimize the petitioner for raising complaints against departmental officials. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a single mother and her son is studying in Swami Atmanand Government English Medium School at Korba, and therefore the impugned order would cause grave hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2026. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 27.03.2026 has been issued purely on administrative grounds and in exigency of service. Learned State counsel further submits that transfer/posting is an incidence of service and the petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is also contended that the allegations of mala fide and retaliation levelled by the petitioner are baseless and unsupported by any cogent material. It is submitted that no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents while issuing the impugned order and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. 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. 6. In the present case, except for making bald allegations, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record to establish mala fide exercise of power or violation of any statutory provision. The impugned transfer order has been issued by the competent authority in administrative exigency and no illegality or arbitrariness is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti