Jitendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:36710

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7223 of 2025

¶6

Reserved for order on 28/07/2025

¶7

Order delivered on 23/09/2025

¶8

1 - Jitendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late L.N. Mishra Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Grade Ii, State Legal Cell, Govt. High School, Chhatauna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Collector Bilaspur, Collectorate Campus, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur, Office At Old Composite Building, In Front Of Collectorate Campus, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - The Principal Govt. Higher School Manikchouri, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Alok Bakshi,	Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Sabyasachi	Choubey, Panel Lawyer

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶20

C.A.V. Order

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated Digitally signed byVED VEDPRAKASH PRAKASHDEWANGAN 28-06-2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner, who is an DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 19:14:27 +0530 Assistant Grade-II, posted at the office of the District Education Officer,

¶22

2

¶23

Bilaspur, has been transferred to the Government Higher Secondary School, Manikchouri, Block, Masturi, District Bilaspur, on administrative exigency.

¶24

The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1994 to the post of Assistant Grade-III, on compassionate grounds. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the year 2008 and was posted at the Legal Cell of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. His posting was there against the post of Account Examiner. On an application being made by the petitioner, the Commissioner, Directorate of Public Instructions (in short “DPI”), issued an order of his posting as Assistant Grade-II, against the sanctioned post of Assistant Grade-II at Legal Cell of the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. In the year 2009, a set-up of the Legal Cell of the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, was issued, and the petitioner was considered as Assistant Grade-II there. On 26-07-2024, the DPI issued a work distribution order of the State Legal Cell, Bilaspur, and the petitioner was assigned the duties as per the order of the DPI. Now, the District Collector/Respondent No. 3 issued the transfer order on 28-06-2025, by which the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Manikchouri, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not the employee posted at the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. The petitioner is an employee of the District Legal Cell, and by the order dated 24-07-2024, he is posted at the State Legal Cell,

¶26

3

¶27

office of the School Education Department, Bilaspur, and posted against the vacant sanctioned post as per the set-up of the State Legal Cell. He is not posted as the regular employee of the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and therefore, the District Collector/ Respondent No. 3 does not have the authority to transfer him. The petitioner is posted there by the order of DPI and he has been assigned work by the DPI. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is without jurisdiction. He would further submit that in the year 2008-09, a post of Assistant Grade-II was sanctioned in the Legal Cell, and on his request, he has been posted there against the sanctioned post of Assistant Grade-II, by the DPI, vide order dated 13-08-2008. It is also submitted by him that on 27-02-2009, a work distribution order was also issued by the DPI, in which the petitioner was posted at the State Legal Cell of the School Education Department, for the speedy and effective disposal of Court cases, and thereafter, the petitioner is discharging duties there. The set-up for the Legal Cell, Bilaspur, was issued by the State Government, and the petitioner was posted there. On 26-07-2024, the DPI issued a work distribution order for the employees who are working at the State Legal Cell, Chhatouna, District Bilaspur, in which the petitioner’s duty was also assigned. Therefore, transferring the petitioner and treating him as the employee of the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, is erroneous. The petitioner is working under the State Legal Cell since 2008, yet he has been considered to be an employee of the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and has been transferred. The impugned transfer order is issued after the cut-off date of the transfer as provided in the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025. The petitioner is holding the

¶28

4

¶29

post of State Level Secretary, in the State Clerical Grade Govt. Employees Union, Chhattisgarh, and the office bearer of the Union cannot be transferred. Therefore, the impugned order of his transfer suffers from perversity and arbitrariness, and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is an employee of the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur. The Collector/Respondent No. 3 has been empowered to transfer the Class-III and Class-IV employees within the district, as provided under Clause 1.1 of the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025. He would further submit that although the petitioner is assigned duties at the State Legal Cell, Bilaspur, however, he is an employee of the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. A work distribution order was issued on 07-10-2024 (Annexure R-1) by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, in which the duties of the petitioner have been assigned after considering him as an employee under the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. The attendance register of the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, also bears the name of the petitioner as an employee under the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. His substantive posting is at the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur. Considering the work conduct of the petitioner and in administrative exigency, he has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Manikchouri, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur. The petitioner is holding the transferable post, and it is the prerogative of the State to transfer the employee on administrative exigency. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is

¶31

5

¶32

liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶34

The main ground raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he is not an employee under the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and his appointing authority is the DPI, who has appointed him to the post of State Legal Cell, Bilaspur. To substantiate his claim, he annexed a copy of the order dated 31-01-2008 issued by the DPI, by which he was posted as Account Examiner at the Legal Cell of the District Education Officer. Though the order dated 31-01-2008 was issued by the DPI but it is only a posting and not the appointment order of the petitioner. The petitioner was temporarily posted as an Account Examiner against the vacant post at the Legal Cell, and it is not that he has been appointed to the vacant sanctioned post of Account Examiner. On 24-07-2008, the petitioner requested to change his designation of posting as Assistant Grade-II, in which he himself had considered to be an employee under the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, forwarded his request to the DPI. At that time, a post of Assistant Grade-II was sanctioned in the Legal Cell of the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and therefore, in consideration of the request of the petitioner, the designation of his post was changed by the DPI vide order dated 13-08-2008 (Annexure P-5), and he has been considered to be temporarily posted on the vacant sanctioned post of Assistant Grade-II there. Therefore, temporarily posting against the vacant sanctioned post in administrative exigency or for smooth functioning of

¶35

6

¶36

the work, cannot be considered to be the appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-II by the DPI in the Legal Cell.

¶37

In the order dated 27-02-2009, issued by the DPI, it is mentioned that since the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, has been appointed as Nodal Officer for conduct and smooth working of legal affairs in the litigation at the State Level, the work distribution order amongst the employees working under the District Education Officer, in the Legal Cell, was issued by the DPI. The petitioner was also assigned the work of communicating with the office of the Advocate General. Even if the petitioner is working at the office of State Legal Cell, but his substantive post is Assistant Grade-II, under the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, and he was temporarily posted at the Legal Cell and assigned duties there. It is also mentioned in the set-up (Annexure P-7) that “fof/k izdks"B fcykliqj ds Lohd`r inksa ds lsVvi dk fooj.k esfe la[;k 27 Ldwy f’k{kk 2202 lkekU; f’k{kk (01) izkFkfed f’k{kk (011) funsZ’ku rFkk iz’kklu (1500) ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy;& ewyHkwr U;wure lsokvksa ds fy;s ^^vk;kstusRrj“. The post of Assistant Grade-II was sanctioned under the District Education Officer for nonevent services, on which the petitioner is posted. Since, the litigation in the School Education Department is increasing throughout the State, the DPI appointed the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, as the Nodal Officer to communicate with the office of Advocate General and also for smooth functioning and speedy disposal of the court cases. Assigning the duties between the employees who are working under the Legal Cell cannot amount to be of their appointment by the DPI. It is also mentioned in the order dated 27-02-2009 (Annexure P-6) that “f’k{kk foHkkx varxZr izns’k Lrj ij U;k;ky;hu izdj.kksa ds Rofjr fujkdj.k gsrq tks LVkQ fof/k

¶38

7

¶39

izdks"B ds varxZr dk;Zjr gSa muds e/; fuEukuqlkj dk;Z foHkktu fd;k tk jgk gS ftlls U;k;ky;hu izdj.kksa ds dk;Zokgh esa fdlh izdkj dk foyac u gks”. Further, the petitioner’s contention that the salary of the petitioner is also drawn from the Legal Cell and he is the regular employee of Legal Cell appointed by the DPI, is also not correct in view of the document Annexure P-10. The salary sheet itself shows that it is issued by the “State of Chhattisgarh District Education Officer, Bilaspur” although he is posted at Legal Cell. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is the employee under the district Education Officer and discharging his duties at the State Legal Cell, Bilaspur.

¶40

Clause 1.1 of the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 provides that-

¶41

“1. ज ि �ल ा � स ् तर पर स ् थ ा �न ां ��तरण :-

¶42

1.1 द ि �न ां �क 14 ��न ां , 2025 स� े 25 ��न ां 2025 तक ज ि �ल ा � स ् तर पर त�त�य श�ण� ्रे ( ग ै �र - क�य�प�ज ि ल ा क ) तथ ा � चत�थ� श ा �ण� कर ्रे �च�र ्म ि रय� क� सथ ् ा �न ां �तरण ज ि �ल� क� र ा ्म �नन ां ां �य प ्र भ ा �र� र�त ्म ्री �� क� अन ां �र ्म ��न ां स� े ज ि �ल ा � कल�क ा टर द ् ्वा �र� द ि कय� �� सक' े ग�। स ै ् व ै �च ्छि +,क स ् थ ा �न ां �तरण ह�त� े आव � ै न ां द ि �न ां �क 06 ��न ां , 2025 स� े 13 ��न ां 2025 तक सब े �ज ं ि 0त द ि व ै भ ा �ग ै क� ज ि �ल ा � क�य��ल ा य र' प ्म ्र �प ्त द ि कय� ��व�ग ै �। ै

¶43

कल�क ा ् टर यह े स�द े ि न ां च ्छि 2चत कर'ग� द ै ि क स ् थ ा �न ां �तरण द ि कय� ��न� व ां ै �ल� प� ा ज ि �ल ा � स�व े ै ग� क� ह ै े � त� उन ां क� स ् थ ा �न ां �तरण ज ि �ल� क� अ ा � र ह े � ह े तथ ा � स ् थ ा �न ां �तरण आ��श त�5 न ां �स े �र प ्र स े �र ि रत ह े 6ग�।” ै

¶44

The petitioner, being a Class-III employee, is under the competence of the District Collector/Respondent No. 3 to transfer his services under the administrative exigency. After approval of the Hon’ble in-charge Minister of the District, the services of the petitioner have been transferred from the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur, to the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Manikchouri, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, on administrative exigency, in which this court does not find

¶45

8

¶46

any illegality or arbitrariness, to quash the impugned transfer order of the petitioner.

¶47

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 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.

¶48

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 order dated 28-06-2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶50

ved

Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Dewangan Vs M/S Jai Vijay Textiles

Ramsu Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhitku Manjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jari @ Nazir @ Shsddaam Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kartami Rama Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokesh @ Lokeshwar Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh