1 CGHC010258952026 2026:CGHC:30914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5492 of 2026 Hrishi Kumar Korte S/o Late Harishchand Korte Aged About 34 Years Working As Patwari At P H No. 01, Murkinar, Tahsil - Usoor, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Patwari under the Revenue Department and is presently posted at Patwari Halka No. 01, Murkinar, District Bijapur. It is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than eleven years of continuous service in District Bijapur, which falls within the Core Scheduled Area. As per the Transfer Policy dated JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.22 10:54:05 +0530 2 03.06.2015 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, an employee who has completed two years of service in a Core Scheduled Area becomes eligible for transfer outside such area. Despite having completed far more than the prescribed tenure, the petitioner's request for transfer has not been considered in accordance with the said policy. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 15.07.2022 seeking transfer from District Bijapur to District Rajnandgaon. Since no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 4498 of 2022, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the said order, the Collector, Bijapur examined the petitioner's case and recorded that he had no objection to the petitioner's transfer to District Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that, despite the favourable recommendation of the Collector, respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's representation vide the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 solely on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed against the district roster of Bijapur and, therefore, could not be transferred to another district. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as it completely overlooks the Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015, under which the petitioner has become eligible for transfer after completion of the 3 prescribed tenure in the Core Scheduled Area. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and respondent No. 1 be directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for transfer to District Rajnandgaon by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that transfer is an incidence of service and no government employee can claim transfer to a particular place as a matter of right. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed against the district cadre/roster of District Bijapur and, therefore, has no vested right to seek transfer to another district. Learned State counsel further submits that the competent authority has duly considered the petitioner's representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 17.05.2023 after taking into account the applicable rules and policy. Merely because the Collector, Bijapur had made a recommendation, the same is not binding upon the State Government, which is the competent authority to take a final decision. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against the 4 district cadre/roster of District Bijapur. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 reveals that the competent authority has considered the petitioner's representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 4498 of 2022 and has assigned reasons for rejecting the request for inter-district transfer. The rejection is founded on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the district cadre of Bijapur and, therefore, is not entitled to seek transfer to another district merely on completion of a particular tenure. 5. The contention of the petitioner that he has completed more than eleven years of service in a Core Scheduled Area and is, therefore, entitled to be transferred outside the district cannot be accepted. The Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015 only enables an employee to be considered for transfer after completion of the prescribed tenure; it does not confer any enforceable or vested right to claim transfer to a particular district of his choice. Equally, the recommendation made by the Collector, Bijapur is merely recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon the State Government, which is the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter. 6. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions relating to transfer unless the decision is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned order. The 5 competent authority has considered the petitioner's representation and rejected the same by a reasoned order. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision would not justify interference by this Court. 7. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti