2025:CGHC:41942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5740 of 2025 Meghnath Kosariya S/o Ramkumar Aged About 43 Years Lecturer (L.B.) Incharge Principal, Govt. High School Pratappur, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 5 - Block Education Officer Block Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 6 - Principal Govt. High School Pratappur, District Mungeli (C.G.) 7 - Sanjay Markandey Lecturer (L.B.), Govt. High School Pratappur, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri S Choubey, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the Order dated 10.06.2025, Annexure P1, passed by respondent-4, whereby the services of the petitioner have been attached to the Office of the District Education Officer (DEO), Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.08.20 16:06:47 +0530 Wps 5740 of 2025 2 District- Mungeli, from the Government High School, Pratappur, District- Mungeli. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State Government has issued Circular dated 04.06.2001, Annexure P2, which is still in force, whereby the State Government has strictly prohibited the attachment of employee of the State. Despite the clear Circular of the State, petitioner’s services have been attached to the Office of DEO, Mungeli, which is against the said Circular. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions, would submit that though the Circular dated 04.06.2001 prohibits the State Government for attachment of any employee, but under administrative exigencies, services of the petitioner have been attached to the DEO, Mungeli, on a complaint made against him, while he was working as In-charge, Head Master, Government High School, Pratappur, and after preliminary enquiry, the complaint was found right, and certain irregularities have been found against him, therefore, services of the petitioner have been attached to the Office of DEO, Mungeli. Though there is ban on attachment of employee vide the said Circular, as also in the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, yet respondent-4 has attached petitioner’s services to the Office of DEO, Mungeli, therefore, appropriate orders may be passed, and liberty is given to the State to take appropriate action against the petitioner with respect to irregularities found against him in the preliminary enquiry, in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed to the petition. Wps 5740 of 2025 3 5. From perusal of Circular dated 04.06.2001, it transpires that attachment of an employee is banned within the State, which has been further reiterated in another Circular, dated 14.07.2014, issued by the State Government, which has been issued with respect to the Transfer Policy of the year 2014-15. A copy of the said Circular is submitted by the State counsel, which also been taken on record. Further, from the Clause-1.5 and 3.17 of the Transfer Policy, it clearly reveals that attachment of the employee has automatically came to be cancelled with effect from 05.06.2025, meaning thereby, there should be no attachment of the employee in the State. It clearly reveals from the order Annexure P1 that despite the ban imposed by the State Government, respondent-4 has attached the services of the petitioner to the Office of DEO, Mungeli, therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 10.06.2025, with liberty in favour of the State to take appropriate action against the petitioner if occasion so arises. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order 10.06.2025 is quashed, and the present petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty in favour of the State. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma