Dr. Ranjip Kumar Dass S/o Late Laxmidhar Dass, Aged About 47 Years Posted As v. 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 10:36:37 +0530 2025:CGHC:44187-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 642 of 2025 Dr. Ranjip Kumar Dass S/o Late Laxmidhar Dass, Aged About 47 Years Posted As - Office Address - Professor And Head, Dept. Of Panchakarma, Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Residential Address - Plot No. Q-18, Gate No. 1, Agroha Colony, Raipura, Raipur - District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 2 - The Commissioner, Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - The Additional Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) 4 - The Principal, Shri Npa Government Ayurved College, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 4) 5 - The Principal, Government Ayurved College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 5) 6 - Dr. Harindra Mohan Shukla, Posted As Controller, Durg Testing 2 Laboratory And Research Centre, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 6) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPS No.7454 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the appellant is that he was transferred by order dated 30.06.2025, bearing No. ESTB/4106/2025/55 from Government Ayurved College, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), to Government Ayurved College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.); and by the same order, the private respondent, namely Dr. Harindra Mohan Shukla, was transferred from the post of Controller, Drug Testing Laboratory and Research Centre, Raipur, to Government Ayurved College, Raipur, in place of the petitioner; and the petitioner was relieved by order No. 3 EST/2025/4973-84 dated 03.07.2025, issued pursuant to the transfer order, relieving the petitioner from his duties at Government Ayurved College, Raipur. The said relieving order is arbitrary, contrary to established norms, and violative of Clause 1.12 of the Chhattisgarh Transfer Policy, 2025. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single
Arguments
: Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along For Respondents/ : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate State Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of
Decision
Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “11. The petitioner has already made his representation on 02.07.2025 before the respondents No. 1 and 2 under clause 8 of transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and it is for the authorities concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and circulars. In the present writ petition, the petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity, mala fide or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025, which warrants interference in the present petition. 12. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The 4 employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 13. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner by reiterating the same plea praying for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quashing the transfer order and the 5 consequential relieving order and with a prayer to let appellant continue as Professor (Panchakarma), Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner submits that the appellant/ petitioner is Professor (Panchkarma) and he has been transferred from Govt. Ayurvedic College, Raipur to Govt. Ayurvedic College, Bilaspur in place of the respondent No.6, who is the Professor (Kayachikitsa). The qualification of the respondent No.6 is M.D. Kayachikitsa and Ph.D. Kayachikitsa, whereas the appellant’s qualification is M.D. Panchkarma. As per the notification dated 16.02.2022, issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022 (in short’ the Regulations, 2022’) has been framed, and as per Regulation 17, the essential qualification for teaching staff would be the postgraduate qualification in Ayurveda in concerned subject or specialty from an university recognized by Central Council of Indian Medicine or National Commission for Indian System of Medicine under the Act. Regulation 17(b) also describes the experience for the post of Professor, in which also the post-graduation qualification in concerned subject, is the required qualification for the post of Professor. He also produced the Table-1 given in Chapter-III of 6 the said Regulations of 2022 and as per entry No. 11, the Kayachikitsa is an internal medicine and as per entry No.12, the Panchkarma is a procedural management. The entry-D and J also separates the Kayachikitsa and Panchkarma, as given in scheduled-VI of Regulations, 2022, which is the minimum essential requirement of Yogya Clinical Skill Laboratory for Postgraduate Departments. He would also submit that the Kayachikitsa and Panchkarma are different branch and having different work in the field. He would further submit that the State Government is going to start higher courses at Shri Narayan Prasad Awasthi Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur in Panchkarma, for which the experienced Professors of Panchkarma stream are required, but in place of the petitioner, the respondent No.6, who is the Professor (Kayachikitsa) has been brought through the transfer order dated 30.06.2025. The transfer order is to accommodate the respondent No.6 in place of the appellant. The respondent No.6 is working there since 1999, he is having a huge private practice and a big hospital just about a distance of 5 minutes from his house, and he is having political support. Earlier, a complaint was made against him by a lady and an inquiry was conducted by the Vishakha Committee, Raipur and there was allegation against the respondent No.6 and he was transferred to Bilaspur and came back after a few months. There is a clear mala fide and arbitrariness on the part of the State Government while 7 transferring the petitioner from Raipur to Bilaspur and to bring an incompetent professor to teach Panchkarma in the college, who is not having qualification for the same. He would also refer the report lodged by the lady and report of the Vishakha Committee, in which there are allegation against the respondent No.6 and despite the said fact the State Government protecting the respondent No.6. There should be fair play on the part of the State Government and the impugned transfer order smells some extraneous consideration, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the ILR 2020 Chhattisgarh 1561 (Dalsoo Ram Darro v. State of Chhattisgarh), AIR Online 2022 CG 363 (Sachidanand Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh) and AIR Online 2023 CG 72 (J.K. Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the transfer of the appellant is strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 and on administrative exigency. He would submit that on 05.12.2024, a clarification has been issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, in which regulation 8(2) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Postgraduate Institutions and Minimum Standards for Postgraduate Education in Ayurveda) Regulations, 2024 have 8 been clarified and according to which, the Professor-cum-Head of Department may be common for both undergraduate and postgraduate departments of the concerned subjects, provided the professor is possessing the postgraduate degree in the concerned subject. Further, in the regulation 17(b)(x) of the Regulations, 2022, it has also been clarified that the teacher of concerned department (either postgraduate in the concerned subject or allied subject), will be considered as recognized teacher of the department and will be eligible for all the privileges of the concerned department. The same clarification will be applicable on the other areas of relevant contexts of said regulations. He would further submit that after this clarification the respondent No.6 is competent enough to transfer in place of the appellant. He would also submit that in the inquiry report of Vishakha Committee, the respondent No.6 has not been held guilty and the disciplinary action is proposed against other employees. It is also submitted by him that, there is no violation of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Bare perusal of the documents show that only the post of Professor is there and there is no sanctioned post for Professor in Panchkarma and Kayachikitsa separately. Further, as far as the 9 allegations against the respondent No.6 by a lady is concerned, the matter was inquired by the Vishakha Committee, Raipur and there is an observation in para 8 of the said report of the Vishakha Committee. Further, the respondent No.6 was also a party (respondent No.5) in WPC No. 5270 of 2021, which was filed by the said lady, who has made complaint and the earlier transfer of the respondent No.6 from Raipur to Bilaspur and in the year 2022, he again came to Raipur are not having the substantial barring upon the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, which makes the said transfer order of the appellant mala fide or arbitrary. It is for the State Government to consider the placement of the employees on the administrative exigency. Though the appellant claimed that the respondent No.6 is not competent to teach Panchkarma, as he is having the qualification of Kayachikitsa, but from the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, it transpires that the respondent No.6 is being considered as Professor (Panchkarma) by the State Government. Present is not a case, where qualification or competency of the employees are to be decided, but it is only mala fide or arbitrariness is seen in the transfer order. The appellant could not demonstrate the violation of any condition of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and his submissions revolves up to the competency of the respondent No.6 to teach a particular subject in the college. There may be some new higher courses opening in the Govt. Ayurved College, Raipur and it is for the State 10 Government to consider the requirement of the teachers/professors there for the relevant subjects under the Regulations. 9. It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and falls within the domain of administrative discretion, unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of statutory rules. In the present case, the appellant has failed to establish any such illegality or arbitrariness in the transfer order. Mere inconvenience or personal hardship cannot be a ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 10. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee.(see Mohd. Mohsin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2012) 13 SACC 758). 11.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that while passing the order impugned, the learned Single 11 Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. The same is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib