1 2026:CGHC:4564-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 70 of 2026 Rajeev Kumar Singh S/o Late Dineshwar Singh, aged about 52 years working on the post of In-Charge Block- Education Officer Block- Odagi Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Surajpur Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Surajpur Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Pradeep Kumar Singh Working on the post of Lecturer (L.B) posted at Govt Boys Higher Secondary School, Odagi, Block- Odagi, Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 3. : Mr. Prasun 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 28 .0 1 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on I.A. No.03/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.03/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 27.10.2025 (Rajeev Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11873 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the petitioner who is working as Lecturer has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School Bhaiyathan as In-charge Block Education Officer Odagi vide order dated 30.09.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.09.2024 he has been again transferred from In-charge Block Education Officer Odagi to In- charge Block Education Officer Premnagar and thereafter, vide order dated 10.07.2025, the petitioner has been transferred from In-charge Block Education Officer Premnagar and posted on deputation as Lecturer, District Institute of Education and Training Center, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.). Being aggrieved with this transfer order dated 10.07.2025, the petitioner has filed a writ 3 petition before this Court bearing WP(S) No. 8208/2025 and this Court vide order dated 21.07.2025 has disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file a representation before the transfer committee and the same shall be decided by the transfer committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also directed that till date no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a representation and now the petitioner has been transferred from In-charge Block Education Officer Odagi, District - Surajpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Khoda, District – Odagi, District – Surajpur (C.G.) vide order dated 29.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPS No.11873 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted at the present place of posting on 21.10.2024 and, within a short span, he has been transferred, which is in clear violation of Clause 3.9 of the Transfer Policy issued by the State Government, wherein it is specifically provided that officers/employees who have completed less than one year of service as on 01.06.2025 shall not be transferred. The appellant has been subjected to frequent transfers within a short period, which is illegal, mala fide, and contrary to settled principles of law. He further submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued without any 4 administrative exigency, as no one was posted in place of the appellant at the time of issuance of the transfer order. Moreover, the transfer order was issued during the transfer ban period without obtaining prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, rendering the order illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. He also submits that the post of Lecturer (Geography) was not lying vacant at the transferred place and, in the event of the appellant’s joining, he would be treated as a surplus Lecturer. Further, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the substantive post of the appellant is Lecturer, without considering the specific grounds raised. Even after dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No. 4, who is also holding the post of Lecturer, was posted in place of the appellant vide order dated 19.12.2025, which clearly demonstrates arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / State 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 appellant / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 5 Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.11873 of 2025 vide order dated 27.10.2025, holding that the appellant’s substantive post being Lecturer, his earlier postings as In-charge Block Education Officer were not substantive in nature and, therefore, the impugned transfer did not amount to frequent transfer nor did it adversely affect any legal right of the appellant. It was further held that no Government servant has a vested right to hold a particular post or place of posting and that the Government is competent to deploy its employees as per administrative exigencies, consequently dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra