Challenge To Transfer Order Becomes Unsustainable Once Employee Joins The Transferred Post: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The Lecturer (History) was serving at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur. He was declared surplus and transferred to a High School in Rajpur. He later appeared for counseling but due to the absence of any vacant post in his subject, he was directed to attend divisional counseling. After that he was posted to District Bastar.

A vacancy for Lecturer (History) arose at lecturer's original school in Abhanpur after the In-charge Principal was promoted. The lecturer contended that he should have been retained at Abhanpur to occupy this position. He submitted representations seeking cancellation of his transfer. Despite this he joined the new place of posting. He approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the transfer order. It was dismissed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved by the decision, he preferred an appeal.

It was argued by the appellant that the transfer order was arbitrary and unwarranted. He submitted that the Single Judge erred in rejecting the writ petition solely because he had already joined the transferred post. He asserted that he joined new post under compulsion and protest from the State authorities. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court ruling in The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. vs. R. Agila & Others, wherein it was held that such joining does not bar a challenge to the order.

It was further highlighted that the Principal of Abhanpur School had requested that the lecturer should not be declared surplus. The lecturer also contended that the transfer violated the State's rationalization policy, because the Abhanpur school was left without a History Lecturer, which undermines the very purpose of rational allocation of teachers. He further alleged that the authorities suppressed information regarding available vacancies, including a History Lecturer post at Abhanpur, during the counseling process, which deprived him of a fair chance for consideration.

On the other hand it was contended by the State that the transfer order was issued in accordance with law and administrative policy. The State further contended that the appellant had already joined the new post. Therefore, the transfer was effected following the surplus teacher rationalization and counseling process.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the lecturer had assailed the transfer only after assuming duties at the transferred location. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, it was reiterated that once an employee joins the transferred post, the order is deemed to have been accepted. Any grievance must be raised before compliance.

The judgment in Tarun Kanungo v. State of Chhattisgarh was relied upon wherein it was held that once a transfer order stands fully executed and thereafter it ceases to have operative effect. Further, the remedy lies in issuance of fresh or appropriate orders, not in challenging an already executed transfer.

It was observed that the lecturer continued to work at the transferred school which confirmed the implementation of the transfer. It was held by the court that the appellant had no vested right to remain at his former posting once the transfer order was implemented. Finding no fault in the order of the Single Judge, it was upheld. Hence, the writ appeal filed by the Lecturer was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 735 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General