Amit Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. with Ms. Anuja Sharma,Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12/05/2026

1. Since all the petitions involve interconnected facts and grounds, they were heard and being disposed of by this common order.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners, who are working on contractual basis in the respondent Health Department, are questioning the impugned order dated 12/11/2025 Annexure P-1 and the order dated 06/05/2026 Annexure P-2, by which, their posting place has been changed from one district to another. (In the relief clause 10.1, it has 6 been mentioned that the order relates to recovery from the petitioner). The petitioners further sought a direction towards the respondents not to implement the decision taken on 12/11/2025 and the minutes dated 04/11/2025. The petitioners also sought a direction towards the authorities to continue their respective services in the same place of posting for the period 2026-27.

3. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No.4122/2026 are being referred.

4. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the respondents authorities, the petitioners participated and selected to their respective posts in the respondents department. The details of the petitioners are as under: S.No. WPS Nos. Name of the petitioner & designation

6. Amit Patel, District Project Coordinator Shiv Kumar Rathore, District Project Coordinator Samit Agrawal, Hospital Conultant Devendra Soni, District Project Coordinator Tilesh Diwan, District Project Coordinator Ashish Kumar Tripathi, District Project Coordinator Present place of posting New place of posting Raipur Kabirdham Korba Balrampur Raipur Bastar Dhamtari Dantewada Raigarh Koriya Janjgir- Champa Sarguja (B) Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the impugned order of posting is passed without jurisdiction because in 7 the cases at hand, the CMHO is the appointing authority whereas the order impugned has been passed by the State agency. According to the learned counsel, since the appointment order does not contain the transferable clause, the petitioners cannot be posted in other district. He would submit that the governing body in its meeting dated 04/11/2025 with regard to agenda 14 categorically admitted that the formal human resource policy has not yet been framed or notified and as such, in absence of any policy or rules, the posting of employees based on work evaluation is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He would submit that the authorities are attempting to treat the district cadre posts as State cadre posts that too without any basis. He would lastly submit that the petitioners are rendering their services in their respective place of posting since last 8-9 years and on account of the impugned posting order, they shall suffer irreparably.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitions. He would submit that looking to the huge requirement of manpower in the health department, the State Nodal Agency consisting of several higher officials convened its meeting on 04/11/2025 and passed the unanimous resolution that those who have completed five years of service, at the district level, their services will be extended with the condition that they shall not be posted in the same district. Thus, the impugned order cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings 8 and documents.

7. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the selection process conducted by the respondent authorities, the petitioners participated and selected on contractual basis on the post as mentioned in the above chart. It is also not in dispute that from the date of their appointment i.e. since last 8-9 years, they are rendering their services at the same place of posting. Looking to the hefty requirement of manpower in the Health Department of the State, the meeting of the State Nodal Agency (Governing Body) convened on 04/11/2025 and passed the following resolution in respect of Agenda No.12. ्ቚस्ता(cid:4)वः(cid:6)- रा(cid:2)ज्य नो(cid:6)डल एेሞ(cid:11)सी(cid:13) छ.ग. अं(cid:17)तग(cid:19)त जिेሞल(cid:2) स्तरा परा का(cid:2)य(cid:19)रात मा(cid:2)नोव सी(cid:17)सी(cid:2)धनो का(cid:27) ቝኋ(cid:2)नो(cid:2)(cid:17)तराण का(cid:27) सी(cid:17)बं(cid:17)ध मा(cid:11) निनोण(cid:19)य। नि(cid:8)्ቓ(cid:10)यः(cid:6)- अंधिधशा(cid:2)सी(cid:13) सीधिमानित ቛኋ(cid:2)रा(cid:2) निनोण(cid:19)य लिलय(cid:2) गय(cid:2) निका, रा(cid:2)ज्य नो(cid:6)डल एेሞ(cid:11)सी(cid:13) , छ . ग . अं(cid:17)तग(cid:19)त जिेሞल(cid:2) स्तरा परा एका ही(cid:13) ቝኋ(cid:2)नो परा निवगत 05 वኘ᭩’ सी(cid:27) अंधिधका सीमाय तका का(cid:2)य(cid:19)रात मा(cid:2)नोव सी(cid:17)सी(cid:2)धनो( का(cid:27) का(cid:2)य(cid:19) मा)ल्य(cid:2)(cid:17)कानो का(cid:27) आध(cid:2)रा परा सी(cid:27)व(cid:2) , - व,जि- इसी(cid:13) शात(cid:19) का(cid:27) आध(cid:2)रा परा ही(cid:6)ग(cid:13) निका इनोका/ पदቝኋ(cid:2)पनो(cid:2) उसी2 जिेሞल(cid:27) मा(cid:11) नोही2 का/ ेሞ(cid:2)व(cid:27)ग(cid:13) I

8. By referring resolution passed by the State Nodal Agency, in respect of Agenda No.14, petitioners would submit that since there is no policy in respect of human resource, leave, increments etc, they cannot be posted in other district is concerned, merely on the basis of absence of a particular policy with regard to pay and allowances and other emoluments, the petitioners cannot claim that they cannot be posted in other district.

9. Considering the various aspects of the matter and looking to the 9 whopping requirement of health services in the State, the governing body of the State Nodal Agency passed the unanimous resolution that those who have completed five years of service, at the district level, their services will be extended with the condition that they shall not be posted in the same district. The said decision taken by the Governing Body is a policy decision, which cannot be interfered with by exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari and Another (2011) 5 SCC 341, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of judicial review in matters considered and decided by the executive authorities on subject, which falls within their exclusive domain. The Supreme Court in paras 27, 28 & 29 held thus : 27) Allowing the appeal filed by the State this Court in Johri Mal case has held that for a public law remedy enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions of the authority need to fall in the realm of a public law--be it a legislative act of the State, an executive act of the State or an instrumentality or a person or authority imbued with public law element. 28) This Court in Johri Mal case has further held that the question is required to be determined in each case having regard to the nature of and extent of authority vested in 10 the State. After holding that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of the omnipresent, this Court has, in terms, ruled that the power of judicial review is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the Courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the other organs of the State and has further cautioned that the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. 29) The Court in Johri Mal case also held that the decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. According to this Court the limited scope of judicial review is: (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in an appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; (ii) A petition for judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds; (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself was perverse or illegal; 11 (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; (v) The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice; and (vi) the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State.

11. As far as transfer/posting of an employee from one place to another is concerned, in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.L.. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that transfer/ posting is an incidence of Government service. Who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer/ posting is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. Therefore, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

12. For the foregoing and considering the limited scope of interference available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters where the decision has been taken by an expert statutory body, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the 12 matter.

13. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep