Collector's authority to transfer intra-district employees includes divisional cadre posts, subject to prior Ministerial approval.

The appellant, a Staff Nurse (Class-III) in Kunkuri, District Jashpur, challenged a transfer order dated 30.06.2025, which relocated her to Primary Health Center, Sulesa within the same district.

She contended that as a divisional cadre employee under the Recruitment Rules of 2013, her appointing authority is the Divisional Joint Director, and thus the Collector lacked jurisdiction to transfer her.

Following a previous writ petition (WPS No. 7781/2025), a High Power Transfer Committee reviewed and rejected her representation on 01.09.2025.

The appellant also cited personal hardships, including her daughter’s education and the birth of a child in October 2025.

A Single Judge dismissed her writ petition (WPS No. 470 of 2026) on 20.01.2026, leading to this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Collector possesses the jurisdiction to transfer a divisional cadre employee within the district under the Transfer Policy, 2025?

2. Whether the personal hardships of an employee, such as family circumstances or children’s education, constitute sufficient grounds for judicial interference in a transfer order?

Clause 1.2 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, which empowers the Collector to effect transfers of employees within a district subject to the prior approval of the Incharge Minister.

Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Paramedical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013.

The Court further relied on the settled legal principle that transfer is an incidence of service, and judicial review is restricted to instances of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions.

The Court reasoned that the authority granted to the Collector under Clause 1.2 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, is not nullified by the fact that the appellant belongs to a divisional cadre.

Since the transfer was intra-district and the Collector had obtained the mandatory prior approval from the Incharge Minister, the procedural requirements of the policy were met.

The Court observed that the High Power Transfer Committee had already objectively adjudicated the appellant’s representation as per the court's earlier directions, and a decision unfavorable to the employee does not equate to legal error.

Regarding personal hardships, the Court held that while such factors are sympathetic, they are not determinative in legal challenges against transfers, which are administrative necessities.

On the second issue, it held that personal difficulties do not warrant judicial interference when the transfer is legally compliant.

The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal, finding no merit in the challenge against the transfer.

No order as to costs was made.