1 CGHC010336472026 2026:CGHC:38703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6409 of 2026 Smt. Alpana Dua Oberai W/o Shri Y.S. Oberai Aged About 61 Years Working As Head Of Department, At Government Co-Education Polytechnic, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education, And Employment, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Ashish Mishra The Additional Director Technical Education Directorate Building, Block- 03, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Preety Dey Under Secretary Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 16.07.2026, whereby she has been transferred from Government Co-education Polytechnic, Raipur to Chhattisgarh Institute of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.05 16:58:51 +0530 2 Technology, Jashpur. By the same order, respondent No.2 has been transferred from Chhattisgarh Institute of Technology, Jashpur to Chhattisgarh Institute of Technology, Raigarh, at his own cost. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had joined at Jashpur only on 15.04.2026 and had completed about three months at the said place of posting. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate respondent No.2 and, consequently, the petitioner, who has completed 60 years of age, has been transferred from Raipur to Jashpur, which is about 500 kilometres away. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a lady employee, her family is settled at Bhilai and she is also undergoing medical treatment. He further submits that the petitioner has already completed 60 years of age and, therefore, in view of the circular dated 03.06.2015 issued by the General Administration Department, an employee who has completed 55 years of age ought not to be posted in a Scheduled Area. It is submitted that Jashpur is a Scheduled Area and, therefore, the petitioner's transfer to Jashpur is contrary to the aforesaid policy. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that respondent No.2 was earlier transferred from Raigarh to Jashpur by order dated 17.04.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 approached this Court by filing WPS No.3637 of 2026. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had challenged the said order as he was pursuing his Ph.D. course from O.P. Jindal University, Raigarh, and his research work was at the final stage and was likely to take a further period of about five to six months. He would further submit that the aforesaid writ 3 petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent No.2 to submit a representation before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 submitted his representation, which was considered by the competent authority and, thereafter, the order dated 16.07.2026 was passed, whereby respondent No.2 was transferred from Jashpur to Raigarh at his own cost. It is, therefore, submitted that the transfer of respondent No.2 cannot be said to have been made merely for accommodating him and the said circumstance cannot furnish a ground for interference with the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the documents it appears that respondent No.2 had earlier challenged his transfer from Raigarh to Jashpur before this Court in WPS No.3637 of 2026. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to submit a representation before the competent authority. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, respondent No.2 submitted his representation and the same was considered by the competent authority. Upon consideration of the said representation, the order dated 16.07.2026 was passed transferring respondent No.2 from Jashpur to Raigarh at his own cost. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, merely because respondent No.2 had remained posted at Jashpur for a short period, it cannot be held that the impugned order was passed only with a view to accommodate respondent No.2. The order dated 16.07.2026, insofar as respondent 4 No.2 is concerned, was passed after consideration of his representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner in this regard does not constitute a ground for interference with the impugned order. 7. So far as the petitioner's contention regarding her age is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the circular dated 03.06.2015. The said circular contains guidelines with regard to transfer and posting of employees who have completed 55 years of age. However, the same cannot be construed as creating an absolute bar against transfer of an employee who has crossed the age of 55 years to a Scheduled Area. The said guideline is required to be taken into consideration by the competent authority while passing an order of transfer. Merely because the petitioner has completed 60 years of age and the place of her transfer, i.e. Jashpur, is a Scheduled Area, the impugned order cannot, in the absence of any statutory prohibition, be held to be invalid on that ground alone. 8. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and ordinarily the Court does not interfere with an order of transfer unless the same is shown to be contrary to a statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fides or other recognised grounds for judicial interference. In the present case, this Court does not find any such ground warranting interference. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu