1 CGHC010272272026 2026:CGHC:38008-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 791 of 2026 Aarif Dhebar, S/o -Shri Md. Ibrahim Dhebar, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Bably Typing, Schoolpara, Baikunthpur, District -Koriya (C.G.) 437335 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2 - Deputy Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 3 - Commissioner, Directorate Of Department Of Higher Education, Block -03, Second / Third Floor Mantralaya, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 4 - Commissioner, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 5 - Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 6 - Under Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.25 17:22:13 +0530 2 7 - The Chairman Transfer Committee General Administration Department , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 492002 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishan Saluja on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parsun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ishan Saluja on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No. 02/2026 i.e., application seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal for a period of 140 days. Also heard Mr. Parsun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 09.01.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 162/2026 (Aarif Dhebar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was promoted to the post of Lab Technician vide order dated 15.03.2024 and posted at Ramanuj Pratap Singhdev Shaskiya Snatakottar 3 Mahavidyalaya, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, a Scheduled Area, was transferred vide order dated 04.07.2025 to Navin Shaskiya Mahavidyalaya, Bortara, District- Bemetara, a Non-Scheduled Area. Aggrieved thereby, he earlier approached this Court in W.P. (S) No.7860/2025, wherein the transfer order was stayed and he was directed to submit a detailed representation before the Transfer Committee, which was directed to decide the same objectively by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Transfer Committee passed the recommendation dated 07.10.2025, which, according to the appellant, failed to consider his grounds regarding his 60% permanent disability, transfer from a Scheduled Area to a Non-Scheduled Area, non-completion of two years’ tenure at the present place of posting and non-posting of any substitute against his post, allegedly in violation of Clauses 1.8, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.10 of the Transfer Policy, 2025. The appellant also contended that he is the sole breadwinner of his family, has aged parents and a dependent wife, and that his school-going children are studying at Baikunthpur. The learned Single Judge, however, vide order dated 09.01.2026 passed in W.P.(S) No.162/2026, dismissed the writ petition, which has given rise to the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, as well as the Transfer Committee vide order dated 07.10.2025, failed to properly appreciate the appellant’s 4 representation and passed the impugned orders without due application of mind and in disregard of the applicable Transfer Policy, 2025. It is contended that the appellant was promoted and posted at the present place on 15.03.2024 and had not completed the prescribed tenure of two years, yet he was prematurely transferred from a Scheduled Area to a Non-Scheduled Area, without simultaneously posting a substitute against his post, contrary to Clauses 1.8, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.10 of the Transfer Policy. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a person with 60% permanent disability and that the authorities failed to consider the beneficial provisions governing posting of persons with disabilities, which contemplate posting at a place where necessary assistance is readily available and long-distance commuting can be avoided. It is further submitted that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family, has dependent aged parents, a non- earning wife and school-going children studying at Baikunthpur, and that the transfer to a place where no Central School is available would cause serious hardship and adversely affect the education of his children. Relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in IRCON International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4952, learned counsel submits that the transfer of a person with disability requires due consideration of the difficulties and special circumstances attached to such disability and, therefore, the impugned transfer order, having been passed arbitrarily and without any demonstrated 5 administrative exigency, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. The principal grievance of the appellant in the present writ appeal is that, despite his specific assertion regarding his 60% permanent disability, his transfer from a Scheduled Area to a Non-Scheduled Area before completion of the prescribed tenure, and the other circumstances pleaded by him, the Transfer Committee as well as the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the said aspects in their correct perspective. It is contended that the appellant’s representation against the transfer was not duly considered and that the transfer order was liable to be interfered with in view of the provisions of the Transfer Policy and the special circumstances pleaded by the appellant. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the pleadings, documents and submissions advanced before it, the 6 learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the legality of the transfer and the grounds urged by the appellant and, upon consideration thereof, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant observations and directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “6. Challenge in this writ petition is to transfer of petitioner who is a physically challenged employee working as Laboratory Technician in the college. During course of arguments, when the Court posed a question to learned counsel for petitioner as to since when petitioner is posted in Baikunthpur, he fairly submits that though he is not aware about specific date, but according to his information, petitioner is posted in Baikunthpur for last more than 03 years. 7. It is well understood that transfer of a government servant, who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to another, is a normal incidence of service and such employee cannot claim, as a matter of right, that he/she should be retained in a particular place as long as he/she desires. The interference with the same is only required when the same smacks of mala fide or in violation of any statutory rule. 8. In case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani reported in 1989 7 AIR 1433 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 9. In the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, it was observed thus: "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it......…" 10. In case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "4. ....Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is 8 an administrative decision. Interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service .." 11. In case of Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, it was held thus: "8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; SCC p. 406, para 7).” 12. Recently, in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 (Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 06.09.2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; "it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a 9 particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement.” 13. In the instant case, petitioner has not pleaded in writ petition that his transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules, the twin grounds available for interference. Petitioner has been transferred from Baikunthpur, District Koriya to Bortara, District Bemetara on administrative exigency. Petitioner has been posted at the present place of posting since last more than three years and thus completed his normal tenure. As such, he cannot say that he has been arbitrarily transferred. The petitioner has no right to remain posted at a particular place for indefinite period. Transfer being an incident of service and the order of transfer of petitioner having been issued in view of administrative exigency, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. It is for the employer to consider which employee is to be posted at which place and this decision is not to be interfered by the Court unless shown to be an act with mala fide. Transfer policy is not to be read as a statute. 14. So far as studies of children of petitioner in a particular school i.e. Central School, is concerned, petitioner can admit his children in any good school located nearby the place of his transfer. Non-availability of a particular 10 school at the place of transfer cannot be a ground to interfere with transfer order, more so when it is passed on administrative exigency. 15. In case of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation (supra), which was relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, the subject matter in issue was reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various universities to the persons with disabilities in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Whereas, in case of Net Ram Yadav (supra), the issued involved was down- gradation in seniority of an employee with disabilities on his transfer to his home district pursuant to Circular issued by the State Government. In case at hand, petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer made in administrative exigency. Thus, both the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner being distinguishable on facts are of no help to petitioner. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of petitioner as also the order passed by the Committee rejecting representation of petitioner against his transfer. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11 17. However, considering the fact that petitioner’s daughter is studying in Class-III and his son is studying in Class-IX, their final exam are going to start within a short span of time and further considering that till date petitioner has not been relieved from his present place of posting to join at transferred place, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent authorities concerned are directed not to disturb place of posting of petitioner and to maintain status quo, as it exists today, with respect to posting of petitioner till 31.3.2026. 18. Certified copy as per rules.” 9. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that the appellant had neither pleaded mala fide nor demonstrated violation of any mandatory statutory provision, and that his transfer from Baikunthpur, District Koriya to Bortara, District Bemetara was made on administrative exigency after completion of his normal tenure. The learned Single Judge further observed that transfer is an incidence of service and the appellant had no vested right to continue at a particular place of posting, and that the Transfer Policy could not be treated as a statute. As regards the education of the appellant’s children, the learned Single Judge held that non-availability of a particular school at the transferred place could not constitute a ground for interference with 12 the transfer order. The judgments relied upon by the appellant concerning persons with disabilities were also held to be distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the transfer order and the order passed by the Transfer Committee rejecting the appellant’s representation, though, considering the academic session of the appellant’s children and the fact that he had not yet been relieved, directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to his posting till 31.03.2026. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered the relevant aspects of the matter and has assigned cogent and sustainable reasons for declining to interfere with the order of transfer as well as the decision of the Transfer Committee. On a careful examination of 13 the impugned order, we do not find any patent illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No.02/2026, seeking condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the present writ appeal, also stands rejected, as the appellant has failed to furnish sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the delay. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu