1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 720 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Kumar Mandal S/o Late Satya Ranjan Mandal Aged About 58 Years Posted As Vice Principal Of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Education, Department Of School Education And Literacy Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry Of Education, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62, Noida- 201309 (U.P.) 3 - Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Bhopal M.P., A 135 A, Gate No. 2, Alkapuri, Drm Office Road, Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 4 - Assistant Commissioner (Admn.) Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Region A 135 A, Gate No. 2, Alkapuri, Drm Office Road, Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate along with Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S. G. assisted by Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Division Bench) Hon’ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 30/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the interim application seeking stay of the transfer/temporary attachment was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the Office Orders dated 24.09.2025, 03.12.2025, 16.12.2025 and the consequential rejection order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P/2 to P/5), by which the petitioner has been temporarily attached from PM SHREE JNV Dongargarh to PM SHREE JNV Sukma-I, a naxal-affected area. The petitioner has sought following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Office Orders dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P/2), 03.12.2025 (Annexure P/3) 16.12.2025 (Annexure P/4) and consequential rejection order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P/5). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to 3 allow the petitioner to continue at JNV Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may pass any such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as canvased, are that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and is presently working as Vice-Principal at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The petitioner has an unblemished service record. The first posting of petitioner was at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dantewada, a naxal-affected area of the State of Chhattisgarh, where he served for a long duration from 27.04.1998 to 07.07.2010, i.e., for more than 12 years. After completion of the said tenure, the petitioner was transferred to JNV Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), where he served from 07.07.2010 to 18.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to JNV Ujjain, where he worked from 18.08.2021 to 14.11.2021. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.11.2021, the petitioner was promoted and posted as Principal, JNV Dongargarh, and he joined the said post on 15.11.2021. The respondent authorities again issued an order dated 05.09.2021, whereby the petitioner was attached to JNV Narayanpur, another naxal-affected area. The petitioner served at JNV Narayanpur from 14.09.2021 to 17.07.2024, i.e., for about 22 months, and thereafter he was transferred to his present place of posting. 4 Thereafter, vide Office Order dated 24.09.2025, the petitioner was temporarily attached to JNV Sukma-I, which is a highly disturbed and naxal-affected area. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 26.09.2025 seeking cancellation of the temporary attachment. Despite the said representations, the respondent authorities again reiterated the temporary attachment vide Office Order dated 16.12.2025, without considering the hardship faced by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted another detailed representation dated 19.12.2025 on medical, family and humanitarian grounds. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.12.2025 in a mechanical manner, merely citing “administrative exigencies,” without assigning any cogent reasons. It is submitted that as per the transfer and attachment guidelines, compulsory posting in hard/naxal areas on displacement is meant for employees who have not served in such areas earlier and who are below the age of 45 years. The petitioner has already served for more than 14 years in hard and naxal-affected areas and is presently 58 years of age and at the fag end of his service. Thus, the impugned attachment order is contrary to the guidelines, arbitrary and illegal. It is further pertinent to mention that even as per Clause 4.4 of the transfer policy relating to “Eligibility criteria for seeking transfer,” employees falling under the Due for Retirement (DFR) category are to be accorded priority and relaxation of mandatory tenure 5 after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner squarely falls within the said category. The respondent authorities have failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations in a fair and reasoned manner and have not communicated any valid justification for rejection of the same. The learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the case relates to temporary attachment and not transfer, that the petitioner has not joined at the attached place till date, and that the applicable guidelines and policies have been ignored. The rejection of the interim application is therefore perverse and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent department without following due procedure of law and are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities failed to decide the petitioner’s representations in a fair and proper manner. The mechanical rejection of the representations is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a Central Government employee presently working as PGT (History) and Vice-Principal at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), and has rendered about 28 years of unblemished service. It is submitted that the petitioner has already served for long tenures in hard and naxal-affected areas, namely at JNV Dantewada from 24.07.1998 6 to 07.07.2010 (about 12 years) and at JNV Narayanpur from 14.09.2022 to 17.07.2024 (about 22 months). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2028 and has hardly about two and a half years of service left. It is a settled principle of law that employees at the fag end of service should not be disturbed by posting them to far-flung or disturbed areas, in the absence of any compelling administrative exigency, which is completely lacking in the present case. It is also submitted that repeatedly attaching the petitioner to another naxal-affected station like JNV Sukma-I, despite his prior long service in hard areas, while ignoring other eligible officers, amounts to arbitrary pick-and-choose, administrative harassment and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s father expired in April 2024 after prolonged illness, his mother aged about 76 years is bedridden, and his wife is undergoing continuous medical treatment at Rajnandgaon. The medical facilities required for such treatment are not available at the attached place. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is suffering from chronic ailments and age-related health issues, and these humanitarian aspects have been completely ignored by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel contends that the representations of the petitioner were rejected without due consideration and without recording reasons, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to 7 consider that the petitioner has not joined at the attached place till date, ignored the applicable guidelines and policies, and mechanically rejected the interim application, which action is perverse and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is about 58 years of age and, as per the attachment policy itself, his services could not have been attached to another school. 4. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the order dated 08.01.2026, has erroneously and illegally observed that since the petitioner had already been relieved, there was no occasion to grant any stay of the transfer/attachment order. It is submitted that on the date of passing of the said order, the petitioner had not been relieved at all. It is further submitted that the petitioner was sought to be relieved only subsequently, i.e. on 29.01.2026, vide order bearing Ref. No. F. 22.11/Ref. Ord./JNVRAJANG/2026/675. Even thereafter, the petitioner continues to work on the said post. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is factually incorrect and based on an erroneous assumption. Learned counsel submits that both the transfer/attachment order as well as the relieving order have been passed in clear contravention of the applicable transfer policy and guidelines, rendering the impugned orders arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. 8 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable transfer/attachment policy and administrative requirements, and do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that transfer and temporary attachment are incidents of service and fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Unless the same is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation, no interference is warranted by this Court. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity. Learned counsel submits that the temporary attachment of the petitioner to JNV Sukma-I was necessitated due to pressing administrative exigencies in a sensitive and disturbed area, and the decision was taken in public interest to ensure smooth functioning of the institution. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at a particular place of his choice. Merely because the petitioner has earlier served in hard or naxal-affected areas does not confer upon him an absolute immunity from future postings, especially when the organizational requirements so demand. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s representations were duly considered and rejected by a reasoned decision citing administrative exigencies. Non-acceptance of the petitioner’s personal or humanitarian grounds does not render the 9 decision arbitrary or illegal. It is submitted that the age of the petitioner or the proximity to retirement does not create a legal bar against temporary attachment or transfer. The applicable policy does not provide an absolute prohibition against posting employees nearing superannuation, and each case is required to be decided on administrative necessity. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the observation made by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 08.01.2026 was based on the factual position placed before it at the relevant time. Subsequent developments, if any, cannot invalidate the Tribunal’s reasoning or order. It is further submitted that the relieving order dated 29.01.2026 has been issued in accordance with rules and policy, and there is no violation of the transfer guidelines. The petitioner’s contention that he continues on the post does not dilute the legality of the attachment order. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prays that the writ petition be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 7. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from a factual error apparent on the face of the record. 8. The Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had already been relieved from his post and, therefore, there was no occasion to grant any interim protection. However, the documents placed on record, including the relieving order, clearly demonstrate that on the date when the Tribunal passed the impugned order, the petitioner had not been relieved. The relieving order came to be issued subsequently on 29.01.2026. Thus, the foundational assumption on which the Tribunal declined interim relief is demonstrably incorrect and contrary to the material available on record. 9. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the prayer for interim relief, has not examined the matter on merits and has failed to consider the relevant and material aspects governing transfer and temporary attachment. Prima facie, the impugned transfer/attachment order appears to be in contravention of the applicable transfer policy, particularly in view of the long and continuous service rendered by the petitioner in hard and naxal-affected areas, his advanced age, proximity to superannuation, and the provisions of the policy relating to employees falling under the Due for Retirement (DFR) category. These vital considerations, which go to the root of the matter, do not appear to have been addressed either by the respondent 11 authorities while rejecting the petitioner’s representations or by the learned Tribunal while declining interim protection. 10. It is also evident that the representations submitted by the petitioner on medical, family and humanitarian grounds have been rejected in a mechanical manner by merely invoking “administrative exigency,” without assigning any cogent or specific reasons. At this prima facie stage, such non-speaking rejection, particularly in the case of an employee who has already discharged prolonged service in disturbed areas, raises serious doubts about due application of mind and adherence to the governing policy and guidelines. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the learned Tribunal has declined interim relief on an erroneous factual assumption and without adverting to the relevant policy provisions, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner, and irreparable injury would be caused if the impugned orders are permitted to operate till the Original Application is finally decided, especially considering the nature of posting and the stage of service of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of the impugned transfer/temporary attachment orders. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the Original Application filed by the petitioner on its 12 own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, and to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration the applicable transfer policy, the petitioner’s grievance, and the submissions of both the parties, while affording them due opportunity of hearing. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the dispute between the parties and all contentions are left open to be urged before the learned Tribunal. The interim protection granted by this Court shall remain operative till the final disposal of the Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 14. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna