1 2026:CGHC:24834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 488 of 2026 Oshin Rani Singh D/o Late Dhirendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 14 Ghutaripara Kasaniya, Katghora District -Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF),, Aranya Bhawan North Block, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.), Research and Extension Forest Division, Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 .0 6 .2026 1 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the order ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 dated 25.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3296 of 2026 (Oshin Rani Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant / writ 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. 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. Challenging the said order, the appellant / writ petitioner has preferred writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 3296 of 2026, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.05.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law and on facts in dismissing the writ petition, as the impugned transfer order dated 27.03.2026 was passed in utter violation of the Circular No. 8624 issued by respondent No.2 PCCF on 15.12.2020, which specifically prohibit the attachment (Salagnikaran) of field staff to offices or other units under the guide of work allocation or temporary duty. He would further 3 submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the said action is retaliatory in nature and has been taken to victimize the appellant for raising complaints against departmental officials. It is also submitted that the appellant is a single mother and her son is studying in Swami Atmanand Government English Medium School at Korba, and therefore the impugned orders would cause grave hardship to the appellant. Hence, the present writ appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as impugned order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.3 shifting the petitioner from Korba to Pendra on a temporary basis without assigning any specific reason be set aside. 5 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that submitted that the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law or fact warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in appellate jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the settled legal position that transfer is an incident of service and ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of statutory rules. He further submitted that the appellant was transferred from Korba to Pendra by order dated 27.03.2026 purely on administrative grounds and in the exigency of service. The order clearly reflects that it is a temporary arrangement made in the interest of departmental 4 functioning. No material has been placed on record by the appellant to establish that the transfer is punitive, stigmatic, or actuated by mala fides. Mere allegation that the transfer was made after filing of complaints dated 05.03.2026 is insufficient in law to draw any inference of retaliation. He also submitted that the reliance placed by the appellant on Circular No. 8624 dated 15.12.2020 issued by the PCCF is wholly misplaced. The said circular is only an administrative instruction regulating deployment of staff and does not curtail or take away the statutory and inherent power of the employer to effect transfers in administrative exigencies. It is well settled that executive instructions cannot override the service jurisprudence governing transfers, nor can they be read as imposing an absolute embargo on temporary postings or adjustments of field staff. It is further submitted that the appellant’s plea of hardship on account of being a single mother and her child’s education, though sympathetic, cannot be a ground to nullify a valid administrative transfer. It is trite law that personal inconvenience is not a relevant consideration for judicial interference unless the transfer is shown to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions, which is not the case here. 6 We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7 Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon careful examination of the record, this Court finds no illegality, 5 perversity, or jurisdictional error in the judgment dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8 It is well settled that transfer is an incident of service and lies primarily within the domain of the employer. Judicial review in matters of transfer is limited to cases where the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, the appellant has failed to place any cogent material to establish that the transfer order dated 27.03.2026 suffers from mala fides or has been issued by way of punishment or retaliation. The allegation that the transfer was made on account of complaints dated 05.03.2026 remains unsubstantiated by any specific pleadings or supporting material. 9 So far as reliance placed on Circular No. 8624 dated 15.12.2020 is concerned, the same, being in the nature of an administrative instruction, does not curtail the inherent administrative power of the employer to effect transfers in exigencies of service. The said circular cannot be interpreted so as to create an absolute bar against temporary deployment or shifting of personnel in the interest of administration. 10 The plea of personal hardship, including the appellant being a single mother and her child’s education at Korba, though deserving of sympathy, cannot override the administrative requirements of the department or form a valid ground for judicial 6 interference in a lawful transfer order. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated these settled principles and has rightly declined to interfere with the transfer order. The findings recorded do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 11 For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12 Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra