2026:JHHC:15262 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1011 of 2026 ….….. 1. Sushil Kumar Yadav, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Rajkumar Yadav, Resident of House No. -42, Amarpur, P.O.-Madhopur, P.S. -Jasidih, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand – 814142. 2. Srikant Mandal, aged about 46 years, Son of Ranjit Mandal, Resident of Village-Parabrindabani, P.O. – J. Khairbani, P.S. – Fatehpur, District – Jamtara, Jharkhand – 814166. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee, Deoghar having its office at Collectorate Building, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. 5. District Education Officer, Deoghar, having its office at Collectorate Building, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s): M/s. Amritansh Vats, S.A.Pathak, A.M.Ekka, A. Choudhary, A. Choubey, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-I ….….. C.A.V. ON: 24/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:15262 2 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order no. 141, dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3, whereby, the petitioner no. 1 has been transferred from Deoghar to Bokaro and the petitioner no. 2 has been transferred from Deoghar to Godda. (ii) During the pendency of the writ petition, the order no. 141, dated 19.01.2026, issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3, may be stayed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that from bare perusal of the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioners appears to be on administrative exigencies; however, in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, the reasons for transfer are mentioned in paragraph 8 to 11, which clearly transpires that transfer order was passed by way of punitive action. Further, it was contended that the petitioner no.1 is suffering from 48% locomotor disability and as per clause 5 (vi) of Memo No. 1971 dated 20.07.2012 recommends that physically disabled person should be given the posting in their home district. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2, whose wife is also working as Government Teacher in district Deoghar in same block but in different school and from Clause- 10 of the Notification no 1556 dated 08.06.2022 it is clearly stipulated that if both the wife and husband are 2026:JHHC:15262 3 Government Teacher; then in that situation, as much as possible, they will be given the posting in same block. 4. From counter affidavit, it appears that several allegation and charges have been made against the petitioners and as a matter of fact, a confidential complaint was received from the School Manager of said School, and the matter was placed before State Level Establishment Committee which considered the same in its meeting by which the petitioners were transferred in view of the fact that due to these petitioners, the atmosphere of the institution encouraging factionalism amongst the teacher posted therein which is tarnishing the reputation of School. 5. For brevity, paragraphs nos. 8 to 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents are extracted hereinbelow:- 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in light of a Confidential complaint received from the School Manager of R. Mitra +2 High School, Deoghar, the matter was placed before the State Level Establishment Committee, which considered the same in its meeting held on 16.01.2026. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that through letter dated 05.01.2026, the School Manager of the CM School of Excellence, R. Mitra, Deoghar reported that two Postgraduate Trained Teachers posted in the said school, namely Sushil Kumar Yadav (Subject: Economics) and Shrikant Mandal (Subject: Mathematics), have continuously been involved in various activities which have adversely affected the academic as well as administrative environment of the institution. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it was further alleged that the said teachers have been vitiating the atmosphere of the institution, encouraging factionalism among the teachers posted therein, displaying indiscipline, tarnishing the reputation of the school by invoking the names of local outsiders, disrupting teaching activities, and failing to discharge their duties efficiently, and accordingly School the Manager requested that appropriate action, including their transfer, be taken against them. 2026:JHHC:15262 4 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it was also mentioned that the said teachers have not been cooperating in the teaching-learning process and the routine academic functioning of the school, and that relevant evidence in this regard is available with the school authorities, and it was further stated that both the teachers have been posted in the said school since their appointment in the year 2012. 6. As a matter of fact, the law on the issue of transfer is now no more res integra, inasmuch as, the employer is entitled to transfer any of its employees in administrative exigencies; but when order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of “Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592, wherein at paragraph no 16, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 7. In a similarly situated case of “Suraj Kumar Das & Ors v State of Jharkhand & Ors, being W.P(S) No. 1781 of 2025, whereby, transfer have been made by way of punitive action, this Court considering the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the of “Somesh Tiwari (supra)” has quashed the order of transfer and directed to join original 2026:JHHC:15262 5 place of posting with the liberty to the respondents that if they wish to initiate any proceeding, they may do so; but they should not punish in the disguise of transfer. 8. Having regards to the aforesaid discussion and the judgments referred to herein above, the order no. 141, dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-6), issued under the signature of the 3rd Respondent, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. It goes without saying that if the respondents wish to initiate any proceeding; they may do so, but they should not punish in the disguise of transfer. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 22.05.2026