1 / 3 CGHC010372742026 2026:CGHC:42118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7149 of 2026 Kalyan Prasad Kahara S/o Teras Ram Kahara Aged About 59 Years Posted As Chief Constable At Excise Office Bilaspur, R/o Village Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Excise Commissioner Office At Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Assistant Excise Commissioner Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Prakash Singh Chief Constable, Excise Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2026, whereby he has been transferred from the Office of the District Excise Officer, District Bilaspur to the Office of the District Excise Officer, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi. It is contended that the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter is scheduled in the near future and, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.29 10:31:25 +0530 2 / 3 therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to continue at his present place of posting. It is further submitted that the impugned transfer order has been issued with an intention to accommodate respondent No.4. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.09.2026. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law on administrative grounds. It is further submitted that no case of mala fide or violation of any statutory provision has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and ordinarily, the employer is best placed to determine the place of posting of an employee keeping in view the administrative exigencies and requirements of the establishment. The scope of judicial review in matters of transfer is limited and interference is warranted only where the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fide, is in violation of a statutory provision, or has been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has primarily relied upon the impending marriage of his daughter and has also alleged that the transfer has been made to accommodate respondent No.4. The personal difficulty pleaded by the petitioner, though 3 / 3 understandable, by itself cannot constitute a ground for quashing an otherwise valid transfer order. So far as the allegation of accommodating respondent No.4 is concerned, except for the said assertion, no material has been placed on record to establish that the impugned order has been passed for an extraneous consideration or with any mala fide intention. 6. The impugned order indicates that the transfer has been made on administrative grounds. No statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this Court which has been violated in passing the impugned order. In absence of any cogent material demonstrating mala fide, arbitrariness or violation of a statutory rule, this Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of the competent authority with regard to the administrative exigency of transfer. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.09.2026. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti