1 CGHC010327982019 2026:CGHC:31851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7999 of 2019 1 - Anil Vishwakarma S/o Shri A.D. Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Lab Technician, Primary Health Centre, Lahpatra, Block Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Am- bikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav on behalf of Mr. C.- Jayant K. Rao, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner against the order of transfer came to be rejected by the Collector. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsus- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.07.28 10:25:15 +0530 2 tainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Lahpatra, where he was the sole Lab Techni- cian, to Community Health Centre, Dhourpur, despite there being no vacant sanctioned post of Lab Technician at the latter place. In fact, both the sanctioned posts at Community Health Centre, Dhourpur were already occupied, which is also reflected in the note-sheet of the Chief Medical and Health Officer. It is further submitted by the learned coun- sel for the petitioner that this Court, vide order dated 30.07.2019, had specifically directed the petitioner to submit a representation before the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by the State Government and further directed the said Committee to decide the representation within the stipulated period. However, in complete disregard of the said direction, the Collector, who was not the competent authority, rejected the petitioner's representation by a non-speaking order merely observ- ing that the transfer was in accordance with the transfer policy of the State Government. Learned counsel would further submits that, despite the interim protection granted by this Court, the Chief Medical and Health Officer proceeded to give effect to the transfer order by issuing the order dated 08.08.2019, which was contrary to the order passed by this Court. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the transfer of the petitioner was effected in accordance with the pre- vailing transfer policy and in administrative exigency. It is contended that no mala fides have been alleged against the competent authority and that transfer being an incidence of service, no interference is war- ranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Lahpatra to Community Health Centre, Dhourpur vide order dated 12.07.2019 and that his representation against the said transfer came to be rejected on 13.09.2019. 3 6. This Court, vide interim order dated 25.09.2019, stayed the operation and effect of the transfer order dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P/2) as well as the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the peti- tioner's representation. The said interim order has remained in force for more than six years. 7. Considering the fact that the interim order has remained operative for such a long period, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the impugned orders to survive. Accord- ingly, the transfer order dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P/2) and the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the petitioner's representa- tion are hereby set aside. 8. It is, however, made clear that the competent authority shall be at lib- erty to pass a fresh order of transfer, if so required, on the basis of ad- ministrative exigency and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti