1 CGHC010281252026 2026:CGHC:31702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5603 of 2026 Sylvester Minj S/o Patras Minj Aged About 61 Years Posted As Superintending Engineer, Office Of The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Maixi Kujur Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kacchar, Water Resources Division, Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General along with Ms. Apurva Nigam, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the order dated 08.07.2026, whereby respondent No.3 has been posted as Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. The petitioner has RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.25 12:21:06 +0530 2 also questioned the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 02.07.2026 seeking his posting against the said post and has further prayed for issuance of a direction to post him as Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 08.01.2024 and his name came to be reflected at Serial No.11 in the gradation list of Superintending Engineers published on 19.02.2026. It is submitted that on 12.03.2026, seven Superintending Engineers were promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, though, according to the petitioner, there were nine vacant posts and he was also eligible for promotion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No.3426 of 2026. Subsequently, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Chief Engineer by order dated 24.06.2026. However, the promotion order stipulated that the promotion would take effect from the date of joining on the promotional post. 3. (b) It is further submitted that one Shri Satish Kumar Tekam, who had been promoted as Chief Engineer, retired from service on 30.04.2026, whereafter additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur was entrusted to different officers from time to time. According to the petitioner, since no posting order was issued in his favour immediately after his promotion, he submitted a representation dated 02.07.2026 requesting that he be posted against the vacant post of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. 3 (c) Learned counsel further submits that instead of considering the aforesaid representation, the respondents issued an order dated 04.07.2026 posting the petitioner as Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 08.07.2026, respondent No.3 came to be posted as Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. According to the petitioner, the impugned action is arbitrary and has been taken with the sole object of denying him posting against the vacant post sought by him, despite his repeated representations and the earlier proceedings before this Court. 4. (i) Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer by order dated 24.06.2026 and has thereafter been posted as Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur by order dated 04.07.2026. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to his desire to be posted at a particular station, namely, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. According to the learned State counsel, no Government servant possesses a vested or enforceable right to seek posting at a place of his choice and the matter of transfer and posting falls exclusively within the domain of the employer. (ii) Learned State counsel further submits that the posting of respondent No.3 at Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur has been made in administrative exigencies and in the interest of administration. Merely because the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking posting at the said place, no corresponding legal right accrued in his favour compelling the respondents to accede to such request. It is submitted that 4 the representation merely constitutes a request which is always subject to administrative requirements and cannot override the discretion vested in the competent authority. (iii) It is further submitted that the allegations of mala fides are wholly vague, bald and unsupported by any cogent material. Except making general allegations that respondent No.3 has been accommodated, the petitioner has neither pleaded any specific facts nor impleaded any authority against whom personal mala fides have been alleged. It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of specific pleadings and convincing material, the challenge to the impugned posting order is wholly unsustainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is two fold. Firstly; the petitioner assails the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 02.07.2026 seeking posting as Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. Secondly; the petitioner calls in question the order dated 08.07.2026 whereby respondent No.3 has been posted against the said post and seeks a consequential direction that he himself be posted thereon. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner does not dispute his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer by order dated 24.06.2026. It is also not in dispute that by order dated 04.07.2026, the petitioner has already been posted as Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) 5 Bango Project, Bilaspur. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is not against denial of promotion but essentially against the place of his posting. 8. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that transfer and posting are incidents of service and ordinarily fall within the exclusive administrative domain of the employer. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the decision-making process and not against the decision itself. Unless a transfer or posting order is shown to be vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, violation of any statutory provision or established mala fides, this Court would be slow in interfering with the administrative discretion exercised by the competent authority. 9. Equally well settled is the principle that a Government servant does not possess any vested or enforceable right to claim posting at a particular station or against a particular post merely because a vacancy exists. The availability of a vacancy does not confer any corresponding legal right upon an employee to insist that he should be posted against such vacancy. The choice of posting necessarily remains with the employer, who alone is competent to assess the administrative requirements of the department. 10. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on the representation dated 02.07.2026. However, mere submission or pendency of a representation does not create any enforceable right in favour of an employee nor does it place any embargo upon the employer from 6 exercising its administrative powers in matters relating to transfer and posting. The petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, that unless his representation is first decided, no posting order could have been issued. At best, such a representation constitutes a request for consideration, which remains subject to administrative exigencies and the discretion of the competent authority. 11. The petitioner has also alleged that respondent No.3 has been accommodated with a view to deprive him of posting at Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Raipur. However, except making general allegations and drawing inference from the sequence of events, no specific material has been brought on record to substantiate the plea of mala fides. It is trite that allegations of mala fides are easier to make than to establish and must be pleaded with full particulars and supported by cogent material. The writ petition neither discloses any specific act attributable to any authority nor has any person, against whom personal mala fides are alleged, been impleaded by name. Bald and omnibus allegations, unsupported by material particulars, cannot constitute a valid ground for judicial interference. 12. The petitioner has also sought to draw support from the earlier rounds of litigation instituted by him before this Court. However, merely because the petitioner had earlier approached this Court or had ultimately secured promotion pursuant to earlier proceedings cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that every subsequent administrative order has been actuated by mala fides or has been passed to prejudice the petitioner. In the absence of convincing material establishing such nexus, no adverse 7 inference can be drawn against the respondents. 13. Equally, the submission that the petitioner is nearing the age of superannuation does not advance his case. Though proximity to retirement may, in a given case, constitute an equitable consideration for the employer while effecting postings, no statutory rule, binding executive instruction or service policy conferring an enforceable right upon an employee nearing superannuation to seek posting at a station of his choice has been brought to the notice of this Court. 14. On an overall consideration of the facts pleaded and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity, violation of any statutory provision, arbitrariness of such nature as would warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or established mala fides. The relief sought by the petitioner would, in effect, require this Court to direct the employer to post him at a particular station by displacing another officer. Such a course is clearly beyond the permissible limits of judicial review in service matters. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, being devoid of substance, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE 𝓡𝓪𝓱𝓾𝓵