2026:CGHC:3122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 578 of 2026

1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Gopiram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. H-3, C.M.H.O. Office Premises, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

3 - The Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

4 - The Transfer Coordination Committee, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Through Its Secretary --- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate BALRAM For Respondents/State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy.G.A.

PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu DEWANGAN

Order On Board

19/01/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned recommendation dated 01.09.2025 and impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) so far it relates to petitioner and further be please to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is posted as Medical Lab Technologist in District Hospital, Bilaspur, however, vide order dated 26.06.2025, he has been transferred to Primary Health Center Lemru, District – Korba. Against his transfer, petitioner has submitted representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2025. He contended that the grounds raised in the representation has not been considered in appropriate manner and the representation has been rejected arbitrarily in mechanical manner.

3. Learned State opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that transfer of petitioner is along with other employee within the State and as many as 31 employees have been transferred by order Annexure P-2 by the State Government including petitioner. She further contended that contents of the decision of the Committee it appears that Committee has taken into consideration the grounds raised by petitioner. He submits that circular of the State Government cannot be applied as statute and it is for the convenience of the State Government.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Perusal of transfer order Annexure P-2 dated 26.06.2025 would show that along with petitioner 31 other similarly situated employees have also been transferred on administrative exigency. Petitioner is holding a transferable post, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at a particular place. Transfer of petitioner cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. Petitioner is holding transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service. The Committee constituted under transfer policy while deciding the representation submitted by petitioner has taken into consideration the grounds raised by petitioner and Grounds raised by the petitioner before the Committee were not found acceptable, and the representation submitted by the petitioner was recommended for rejection.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors Vs.

State of Bihar & Ors. [(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 659] has considered the issue with regard to transfer of the government servant and held thus:

“4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mand