1 2025:CGHC:56712-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 847 of 2025 Smt. Omeshwaree Naik W/o Shri Banshidhar Naik Aged About 38 Years Govt Employee- Lecturer, Presently Posted As Asst, Program Coordinator District- Project Officer, Samagra Shiksha, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Director Public Education Directorate, Indrawati, Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 3. The Collector District- Korba (C.G.) 4. The District Eduacation Officer District- Korba (C.G.) 5. The District Mission Coordinator District- Project Office Samgra Shiksha, Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 6. Shri Chandresh Kumar Dubey Lecturer (L.B) Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Padaniya Block- Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) 7. Smt. Vartikajaan Lecturer Posted At Swami Atmanand School, Pasan, Block- Podi, Uproda, District- Korba (C.G.) 8. Shri Manoj Pandey Presently Working As District Mission Coordinator District Project Office Samagra Shiksha Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 17:13:54 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 21.11.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 12047 of 2025 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “ It is, therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set aside the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure A-1), passed in W.P.(S) No. 12047/2025 by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court and and further allow the relief sought by the appellant in writ petition or any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in favour of the appellant, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was transferred from the District Project Office, Samagra Shiksha, Korba (District 3 Korba) to the Office of the District Education Officer, Raigarh. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal has been filed challenging the said order. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 6. The petitioner holds substantive post of lecturer and as per the Government Decision the teachers/lecturers who are not imparting education due to their engagement in various other works have been directed to be posted in the Schools to impart education. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 has been passed. This action of the respondents does not suffer from the malafide or arbitrariness. The allegation of the petitioner that there is inter-see dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 8, it can be very well agitated before the Criminal Court where the criminal proceeding is going on. Therefore, I am of the view that no illegality 4 or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in issuing the transfer order which warrants interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition (s) sans merits and it is dismissed.” 5. The appellant submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 suffers from perversity and deserves to be set aside, as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that FIR No. 451/2025 under Section 75(1)(i) B.N.S. has been registered against respondent No. 8 for continuous sexual harassment committed upon the appellant between 04.09.2024 and 10.01.2025, her statement has already been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, and the matter is still under investigation. Despite this, the appellant and key prosecution witness Smt. Qaji Ruksar Hussain have been transferred mid-term to Raigarh, while respondent No. 8, an influential officer has been protected and allowed to remain at the same posting, thereby exerting pressure on staff. The authorities have also failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, as no Internal Committee has been constituted and no action has been initiated against respondent No. 8. Further, the transfer is arbitrary and harsh, issued mid-academic session without considering that the appellant’s children are studying in Classes 10 and 4 in Korba and her husband, a contractual 5 Ayurvedic Medical Officer, is posted 70 km away. The transfer order, therefore, is malafide, influenced by respondent No. 8, violative of policy, and constitutes victimisation of the appellant who is already facing criminal conspiracy at the hands of respondent No. 8. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the substantive post of the petitioner is lecturer and she has remained posted at the present place of posting for more than last 3 years, as such, she has rightly been transferred to the Office of the District Education Officer to impart education to students. The respondent therefore prays that the appeal be dismissed and the order impugned dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge be upheld. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant holds a substantive post of Lecturer, and in light of the Government’s policy decision directing teachers/lecturers engaged in non-academic duties to be reposted to schools for imparting education, the transfer order dated 26.09.2025 has rightly been issued. The learned Single Judge has correctly observed that the 6 allegations of sexual harassment and the inter-se dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 8 are matters falling within the domain of the criminal proceedings already initiated, and such issues cannot be adjudicated in transfer litigation. The transfer has been made on administrative grounds, within the competence of the authority, and does not reflect mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of transfer policy. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order warranting appellate interference. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti