Dismissed¶¶32

Hrishi Kumar Korte v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – Inter-district transfer

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jul 2026WPS/5492/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 5492 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.), decided 21/07/2026. Keywords: transfer policy 03.06.2015; Core Scheduled Area; Patwari; district roster/district cadre Bijapur; inter-district transfer; recommendatory nature of Collector's recommendation; no vested right to transfer; Article 226 judicial review of transfer orders; mala fides/arbitrariness standard; representation rejected 17.05.2023; prior WPS No. 4498 of 2022; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015 only enables an employee to be considered for transfer after completion of the prescribed tenure; it does not confer any enforceable or vested right to claim transfer to a particular district of his choice. ¶¶28

Hrishi Kumar Korte Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has completed more than eleven years of service in the Core Scheduled Area but was appointed against the district cadre/roster of District Bijapur, is entitled to be transferred to another district under the Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The recommendation made by the Collector, Bijapur is merely recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon the State Government, which is the competent authority to take the final decision.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Under Article 226 the Court does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions relating to transfer unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of a statutory provision; the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned order.ratio¶¶29
The competent authority duly considered the petitioner's representation pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court and rejected it by a reasoned order; mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the decision does not justify interference.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Inter-district transfer - Patwari serving in Core Scheduled Area (District Bijapur) sought transfer to District Rajnandgaon citing Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015 and a favourable recommendation of the Collector, Bijapur; representation rejected on 17.05.2023 on the ground that he was appointed against the district roster of Bijapur. HELD: (i) the Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015 only enables consideration for transfer after completion of the prescribed tenure and confers no enforceable or vested right to transfer to a district of choice; (ii) the Collector's recommendation is merely recommendatory and not binding on the State Government, the competent authority; (iii) under Article 226 the writ court does not sit in appeal over transfer decisions absent mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions, and mere dissatisfaction does not justify interference. Writ petition dismissed.

CGHC010258952026

2026:CGHC:30914

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5492 of 2026

¶7

Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTISHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.22
10:54:05
+0530

¶8

Hrishi Kumar Korte S/o Late Harishchand Korte Aged About 34 Years Working As Patwari At P H No. 01, Murkinar, Tahsil - Usoor, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2. The Collector Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.

¶14

State

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

21/07/2026

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Patwari under the Revenue Department and is presently posted at Patwari Halka No. 01, Murkinar, District Bijapur. It is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than eleven years of continuous service in District Bijapur, which falls within the Core Scheduled Area. As per the Transfer Policy dated

¶19

¶20

03.06.2015 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, an employee who has completed two years of service in a Core Scheduled Area becomes eligible for transfer outside such area. Despite having completed far more than the prescribed tenure, the petitioner's request for transfer has not been considered in accordance with the said policy. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 15.07.2022 seeking transfer from District Bijapur to District Rajnandgaon. Since no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 4498 of 2022, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the said order, the Collector, Bijapur examined the petitioner's case and recorded that he had no objection to the petitioner's transfer to District Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that, despite the favourable recommendation of the Collector, respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner's representation vide the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 solely on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed against the district roster of Bijapur and, therefore, could not be transferred to another district. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as it completely overlooks the Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015, under which the petitioner has become eligible for transfer after completion of the

¶21

¶22

prescribed tenure in the Core Scheduled Area. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and respondent No. 1 be directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for transfer to District Rajnandgaon by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

¶23

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that transfer is an incidence of service and no government employee can claim transfer to a particular place as a matter of right. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed against the district cadre/roster of District Bijapur and, therefore, has no vested right to seek transfer to another district. Learned State counsel further submits that the competent authority has duly considered the petitioner's representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 17.05.2023 after taking into account the applicable rules and policy. Merely because the Collector, Bijapur had made a recommendation, the same is not binding upon the State Government, which is the competent authority to take a final decision. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against the

¶26

¶27

district cadre/roster of District Bijapur. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 reveals that the competent authority has considered the petitioner's representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 4498 of 2022 and has assigned reasons for rejecting the request for inter-district transfer. The rejection is founded on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the district cadre of Bijapur and, therefore, is not entitled to seek transfer to another district merely on completion of a particular tenure.

¶28

The contention of the petitioner that he has completed more than eleven years of service in a Core Scheduled Area and is, therefore, entitled to be transferred outside the district cannot be accepted. The Transfer Policy dated 03.06.2015 only enables an employee to be considered for transfer after completion of the prescribed tenure; it does not confer any enforceable or vested right to claim transfer to a particular district of his choice. Equally, the recommendation made by the Collector, Bijapur is merely recommendatory in nature and is not binding upon the State Government, which is the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter.

¶29

This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions relating to transfer unless the decision is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned order. The

¶30

¶31

competent authority has considered the petitioner's representation and rejected the same by a reasoned order. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision would not justify interference by this Court.

¶32

Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Jyoti

Hrishi Kumar Korte v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrishi Kumar Korte v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Animesh Singh Tomar Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Mahaveer Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paleshwar Dewangan Vs the State of Chhattisgarh