1 2026:CGHC:1604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14080 of 2025 Bhupeshwari Sharma W/o Shri Avinash Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o House Number 57 Judawan Marg Shitla Para Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - District Education Officer District - Kanker (C.G.). 3 - Block Education Officer Block Koylibeda, District - Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 transferring the petitioner from Primary School Patodh to Primary School Bhattipara, Block Koylibeda, District Kanker;. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the Respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representations in accordance with law and transfer policy, keeping in view her husband's disability and her daughter's medical condition; and 10.3 Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Ms. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is working on the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) posted at Government Primary School, Patoud, Kanker has been transferred on rationalization to Government Primary School, Bhattipara, Block Koyalibeda by District Education Officer & Secretary, District Rationalization Committee, North Bastar Kanker vide order dated 05.06.2025. She would further submit that representations were made by the petitioner before the Collector, District Education Officer & Block Education Officer, for cancellation of her transfer order on the ground that her daughter is physically and mentally retarded. She would contend that representations so made by the petitioner have not been considered; thus, she would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Sharma, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Sahu and submit that the petitioner failed to comply with the transfer order dated 05.06.2025, therefore, she has been placed under suspension; thus, this writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It appears that petitioner was transferred from Government Primary School, Patoud, Kanker to Government Primary School, Bhattipara, Block Koyalibeda by District Education Officer & Secretary, District Rationalization Committee, North Bastar Kanker on 05.06.2025. 3 Immediately thereafter, she made representations before the District Education Officer, Collector and Block Education Officer, but no decision has been taken till date. The representations made by the petitioner remained pending, therefore, she did not join services at transferred place. 6. In the representation made by the petitioner, it has categorically been stated that her daughter is physically & mentally challenged and her husband is also a physically challenged person. Despite the petitioner having assigned genuine medical reasons, the respondents failed to decide the said representations. The respondents ought to have considered or examined the representations in proper perspective taking a lenient and sympathetic view in the light of the compelling medical circumstances placed before them. 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make fresh representation against order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) before respondent No.2 within a period of three days from today and in turn, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide it within a further period of five days. 8. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order of suspension in accordance with law, if so advised. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction (s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim