An Incharge posting does not vest a legal right to continue in that position; transfer policy guidelines are not enforceable as a matter of right, reaffirming settled principles. High Court restates the limited judicial role in transfer matters and upholds the previously established precedent, providing binding guidance for service jurisprudence in government employment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/780/2025 of DR. SHAYAM SHANKAR RAJ Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010442502025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the principles applied by the Single Judge and previous decisions of the court |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that an employee holding the post of ‘Incharge’ does not acquire a vested right to continue in that position, and such arrangement does not confer enforceable rights. Transfer guidelines framed by the government are administrative in nature and do not confer justiciable rights unless proven otherwise by statutory or legal backing. Judicial interference in transfer/posting decisions is limited and warranted only if there is proven illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide. Since the appellant held only a temporary charge and the transfer policy was not violated as per the competent authority, no legal right was infringed warranting interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Order of Coordinate Bench in Dr. Iqbal Hussain v. State of Chhattisgarh relied on by appellant; consideration of settled precedent on administrative transfers. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Settled principle that Incharge appointments are not substantive and do not create enforceable rights; transfer policies are administrative instructions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, after around 10 months as Incharge CMHO at Narayanpur, was transferred back to his substantive post as Medical and Health Officer, Bastar, after a senior officer was posted as CMHO. The transfer and rejection of representation were challenged as violating the two-year minimum stay requirement in the transfer policy, but the court found no such right vested in the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh and service matters under the High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and service tribunals dealing with similar Incharge and transfer policy disputes |
| Follows | Follows prior Chhattisgarh High Court precedents, including previous orders relating to enforcement of transfer policy |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that holding an ‘Incharge’ post does not confer any enforceable legal right to continue or to prevent transfer to the substantive post.
- Clarifies transfer policies framed as administrative instructions are not enforceable in courts unless supported by statute.
- Confirms that judicial review in transfer matters is limited and can only be invoked on grounds of illegality, mala fide, or arbitrariness.
- Upholds previous precedent that ‘temporary charge’ arrangements can be altered by the administration without conferring rights to the incumbent.
- Affirms that non-compliance with internal government policy, without a statutory mandate, does not provide a cause of action for writ relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench examined whether an Incharge appointment creates a right to continue in that post and whether the government’s transfer policy is legally enforceable by employees.
- It found from the records that the appellant was not substantively appointed as CMHO but only held temporary charge, which was reconsidered after posting a senior officer.
- The court reaffirmed the principle that an employee holding an Incharge post does not acquire substantive rights to that position, relying on established jurisprudence.
- Transfer policy guidelines were treated as administrative instructions, with the court reiterating the absence of justiciable rights unless backed by statute or law.
- The Bench relied on the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and distinguished the facts from the Dr. Iqbal Hussain decision cited by the appellant.
- Noting the proper procedure followed by the transfer committee and the absence of mala fide or arbitrariness, the court found no legal infirmity or cause to interfere.
- The writ appeal was thereby dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the transfer order and rejection of representation as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the government’s transfer policy.
- Argued that he was transferred within 10 months, allegedly violating Clauses 3.9 and 3.10 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, which require a minimum stay of one or two years.
- Cited a prior court order (Dr. Iqbal Hussain v. State of Chhattisgarh) where similar transfers were set aside.
- Contended that the Single Judge wrongly held that the transfer policy was not enforceable as a right.
- Sought setting aside of the impugned orders and restoration of posting.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that the appellant only held temporary charge as Incharge CMHO; a senior officer was posted to that position.
- Asserted transfer to substantive post was administrative and necessary to avoid overlapping authority.
- Emphasized that the decision was neither illegal nor arbitrary and in line with transfer policy as interpreted by the authority.
- Supported findings and reasoning of the Single Judge.
Factual Background
The appellant, Dr. Shayam Shankar Raj, was posted as Incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Narayanpur, in August 2024. After serving for about 10 months, he was transferred by order dated 26.06.2025 to his substantive post at District Hospital, Bastar, subsequent to the posting of a senior officer as CMHO, Narayanpur. The appellant contested the transfer, citing the government’s transfer policy requiring a minimum tenure, and challenged the rejection of his representation. The Single Judge dismissed his petition, leading to this intra-Court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The court discussed the Transfer Policy, 2025, specifically Clauses 3.9 and 3.10 concerning minimum tenure before transfer. However, it interpreted these guidelines as administrative instructions lacking statutory force, and held that they do not create enforceable legal rights for government employees. The principle that postings on temporary or Incharge basis do not confer substantive right was reaffirmed based on established service law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separately concurring opinions were recorded; both judges concurred in the reasoning and decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or changes to evidentiary/procedural requirements were set by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing legal principles reaffirmed regarding Incharge posting rights and the status of transfer policies.