1 2025:CGHC:40898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 800 of 2023 1 - Smt. Bhagwati Sunnath W/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sunnath Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Government Higher Secondary School, Lakhram, Block- Bilha, Tah. Bilha, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Block Education Officer Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner challenges the rejection of her transfer representation dated 09.01.2023, while a similarly placed person, Smt. Rajanigandha Behar, was granted relief on identical grounds. Earlier, the transfer order dated 30.09.2022 of petitioner was stayed by this Court directing her to approach the High Level Committee, which disregarded her family circumstances, CRPF posting of her husband in Uttarakhand and schooling of her minor son in Bilaspur, making her transfer to a distant location unfeasible. The denial of committee of her plea citing non-violation of transfer policy, yet allowing a similarly situated Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 colleague’s request, is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to transfer policy, warranting this petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS and may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 09.01.2023 and may kindly be pleased to quash the transfer order dated 30.09.2022 with respect to the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation made by the petitioner. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Vide order dated 25.01.2023, order of status quo was granted to the petitioner by this Court. 3. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that on the strength of the aforesaid stay order, the petitioner is still continuing at his original place of posting, as such the order transferring the petitioners, by the afflux of time, has lost its efficacy and as such the orders dated 30.09.2022 and 09.01.2023 are required to be quashed and accordingly the said orders under challenge are hereby quashed. 4. However, liberty is granted to the respondent State authorities to pass appropriate orders in respect of transfer of the petitioner, in case exigency arises, without being influenced by this order. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge