Dismissed¶31

Gopal Prasad Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2026WPS/8534/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teacher transfer challenge dismissed; Collector, Surguja held competent to transfer government servant within district under transfer policy prevailing in year 2022 subject to In-charge Minister approval, which was accorded; attachment order dated 02.07.2022 by District Education Officer distinguished from transfer order; plea of frequent transfers rejected as impugned order dated 09.09.2022 came after two years; interim order vacated; no order as to cost; WPS No. 8534 of 2022; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:18165; Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur; single judge Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.07.2022, by which the petitioner's services were attached to Primary School Laxmipur, Block Ambikapur, is not a transfer order but an order of attachment. ¶28

Gopal Prasad Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Collector, Surguja had the authority/competency to issue the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2022, given that the earlier transfer of 06.06.2020 was issued by the State Government. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Order dated 02.07.2022, by which the petitioner's services were attached to Primary School Laxmipur, Block Ambikapur, is not a transfer order but an order of attachment.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2022 was issued by the Collector after a considerable period of about two years following the initial 2020 transfer, the petitioner cannot be said to be a victim of frequent transfers.

¶29

Key takeaways

As per the transfer policy prevailing in the year 2022, the Collector was competent to transfer a government servant within the district after obtaining approval from the In-charge Minister, and such approval was accorded in this case.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), 21/04/2026 — WPS No. 8534 of 2022 — Gopal Prasad Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh. An Assistant Teacher (L.B.), E-Cadre, challenged his transfer order dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Collector, Surguja, seeking quashing on the grounds that (i) the Collector lacked authority, as his earlier transfer of 06.06.2020 had been issued by the State Government, and (ii) he was a victim of frequent transfers, having meanwhile been attached by the District Education Officer to another school by order dated 02.07.2022. Held: (a) the order dated 02.07.2022 was an attachment of services, not a transfer; (b) the impugned transfer was issued about two years after the 2020 transfer, so the plea of frequent transfers fails; and (c) under the transfer policy prevailing in 2022 the Collector was competent to transfer a government servant within the district after obtaining approval of the In-charge Minister, and such approval had been accorded. No case for interference was made out; the petition was dismissed, the interim order was vacated and there was no order as to costs.

2026:CGHC:18165

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 8534 of 2022

¶6

Gopal Prasad Shukla S/o Devi Prasad Shukla Aged About 46 Years Assistant Teacher Lb, Ecategory, Govt. Primary School, Shitlaward, Block - Ambikapur District Surguja. R/o Shivdhari Colony Ambikapur P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Collector Surguja, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - District Education Officer, Surguja, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Block Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

21/04/2026

¶17

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/1) and may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondents to not disturb the petitioner without extreme administrative exigency due to illness of his parents specially his father.

¶19

¶20

10.2 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case, may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶21

10.3 That, the cost of the petition may also be granted. ”

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is posted as Assistant Teacher (L.B.), E- Cadre was transferred from Primary School to another Primary School Shitlaward, Block Ambikapur, District Surguja on 09.09.2022 by the Collector, Surguja. He would further submit that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. He would also submit that initially, the petitioner was transferred by the State Government vide order dated 06.06.2020 from Primary School Brahmapara to Government Primary School Shitlaward and thereafter, his services were attached by the District Education Officer, Ambikapur, from Government Primary School Shitlaward to Government Primary School Laxmipur, Ambikapur.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that earlier transfer order was issued by the State Government, whereas the present impugned order has been issued by the Collector, who has no authority to issue the impugned transfer order.

¶24

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 was passed in accordance with the prevailing transfer policy of the year 2022. He would further submit that the Collector was competent to pass the transfer order within the district after obtaining approval from the concerned In-charge Minister. He would contend that earlier order dated 02.07.2022 was not a transfer order but merely an order of attachment of services with Primary School Laxmipur, Block Ambikapur, therefore, the plea of frequent transfer is not made out. He would argue that the impugned transfer order was issued by the Collector

¶25

¶26

after obtaining due approval from the in-charge Minister; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶28

6. It is evident that the petitioner was initially transferred vide order dated 06.06.2020 from Primary School Brahmapara to Government Primary School Shitlaward. Thereafter, his services were attached to Primary School Laxmipur, Block Ambikapur, vide order dated 02.07.2022 and order dated 02.07.2022 is not a transfer order but an order of attachment.

¶29

7. The impugned transfer order dated 09.09.2022 has been issued by the Collector after a considerable period i.e. after 02 years, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers.

¶30

8. With regard to the competency of the Collector, as per the transfer policy prevailing in the year 2022, the Collector was competent to transfer a government servant within the district after obtaining approval from the In-charge Minister and such approval was accorded by In-charge Minister.

¶31

9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.

¶32

10. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. No order as to cost.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Nadim