1 CGHC010227102026 2026:CGHC:40861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4566 of 2026 Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe S/o M.S. Kamthe Aged About 44 Years R/o Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Directorate Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chitrakant Dhruv Assistant Food Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Apoova Ghore, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner, who is working as Food Officer/Assistant Director, has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Suguja to Directorate, Nava Raipur, C.G. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.21 11:50:52 +0530 2 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after his promotion on 30.12.2024 as Food Officer/Assistant Director, was initially posted at Balrampur-Ramanujganj and thereafter transferred to Surguja by order dated 23.04.2025, where he joined on 02.05.2025. Within about thirteen months, by the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, he has again been transferred to the Directorate of Food, Nava Raipur. It is contended that the transfer is, therefore, a frequent transfer and is contrary to the spirit of the transfer policy. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the documents placed on record demonstrate that against three sanctioned posts of Assistant Director at the Directorate, as on date five Assistant Directors were already working, and hence there was no corresponding administrative necessity for transferring the petitioner there. It is further submitted that immediately after the petitioner’s transfer, the charge of Food Officer, Surguja was entrusted to respondent No.3, who is substantively an Assistant Food Officer and junior to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the sequence clearly indicates that the petitioner has been transferred with male fide intention that too without any administrative exigency only to accommodate respondent No.3. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order has been passed purely on account of administrative exigency and larger public interest after obtaining coordination of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. It is submitted that there were vacancies at the level of Joint Director and Deputy Director in the Directorate, resulting in shortage of officers and affecting the functioning of the department. The petitioner 3 was, therefore, transferred to the Directorate pursuant to approval of the competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner had completed more than one year at Surguja and, therefore, there was no violation of Clause 3.9 of the Transfer Policy, which provides that an employee who has completed less than one year at a place shall ordinarily not be transferred. Learned State counsel submits that transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel. It is submitted that the allegation of frequent transfer is misconceived, as the petitioner had remained posted at Surguja for more than one year. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 was entrusted only with the temporary charge of Food Officer, Surguja after the transfer of the petitioner because after the impugned order the respondent No.3 is the senior most at Surguja, so that the functioning of the district office does not suffer. It is denied that the petitioner was transferred with an intention to accommodate respondent No.3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the documents it appears that the petitioner was transferred to Surguja in April, 2025 and joined there in May, 2025. Within about thirteen months, he was again transferred to the Directorate. At the same time, the documents relied upon by the 4 petitioner and the submissions made by the parties it is quite vivid that as on date five Assistant Directors were already working against three sanctioned posts of the said cadre at the Directorate. The respondents have not satisfactorily explained, with reference to the sanctioned strength, why the petitioner was required to be transferred to such place on account of administrative exigency. 7. The circumstance which assumes further significance is that immediately upon the petitioner’s transfer, respondent No.3 was again entrusted with the charge of Food Officer, Surguja. Though the respondents contend that the charge was only temporary, the explanation does not satisfactorily account for the necessity of shifting the petitioner to a place where there was already excess strength, while simultaneously restoring the charge at Surguja to respondent No.3. 8. In the facts of the present case, the cumulative effect of the frequent transfer of the petitioner, excess strength at the transferred place and the immediate entrustment of the very same charge to respondent No.3 cannot be brushed aside. The material on record makes the explanation of administrative exigency insufficient and lends substantial support to the petitioner’s contention that the transfer was made to accommodate respondent No.3. 9. The plea regarding availability of vacancies at the level of Joint Director and Deputy Director also does not satisfactorily establish the necessity of transferring the petitioner, who was holding the post of Food Officer/Assistant Director, to the Directorate, particularly when the 5 record indicates excess strength against the corresponding posts there. 10. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, insofar as it transfers the petitioner from Surguja to the Directorate of Food, Nava Raipur, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue as Food Officer, Surguja. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No cost(s). SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu