1 2026:CGHC:26456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4836 of 2026 Gopal Singh Ayam S/o Ramlag Singh Ayam Aged About 41 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt Primary School Ramnagar Block- Wadrafnagar District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Wadrafnagar District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.06.30 17:24:24 +0530 2 5 - Head Master Govt Primary School Ramnagar Block- Wadrafnagar District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 6 - Head Master Govt. Primary School Dhanjara Block- Wadrafnagar District- Balrampur -Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) :Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- "10.1.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to modify posting order dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) and to consider case of the petitioner for seeking to allow his joining at original school Govt. Primary School Ramnagar Block Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh with all consequential benefit at the earliest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted." 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was placed under suspension on allegations relating to irregularities in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated. However, instead of being permitted to resume duties at his original place of posting, he was posted to another school without assigning any reason. It is contended that, in the absence of any finding of misconduct or departmental enquiry, such action is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that no substitute teacher has been posted at the petitioner's original school and, therefore, his reposting there would not cause any administrative inconvenience. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin at his original place of posting, namely, Government Primary School, Ramnagar, Block Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj. 3. Mr. Vivek Verma, learned Govt. Advocate would invite the attention of this Court in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of L.P. Saket v. 4 Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited1 wherein it has already been held that it is not a thumb rule that an employee whose suspension has been revoked has a right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to answer the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of L.P. Saket (supra) wherein the Division Bench formulated the following question for consideration in paragraph 1 :- "1. Vide order date 27.03.2018, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the present writ petition on the question whether an employee placed under suspension on charges of omission and commission for which a departmental proceeding was initiated and is still subsisting, has a right to be posted back to the same place of posting after revocation of suspension or he can be given another place of posting." 1 WPS No. 7269/2017 decided on 15.11.2018 5 6. Thereafter, the aforesaid question has been answered by the Court in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the judgment, which states as under :- "12. Keeping in mind what the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has had to say in the case of Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.2 and even with regard to correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others. V. Dr. R.K. Shastri & Another,3 we are constrained to hold that the order passed by a coordinate Bench of the Single Judge in the cases of Khadanand Patanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others4 and Khelendra Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh5 are not good laws. There is no right of an employee to claim a place of posting on revocation of suspension as a matter of right and the competent authority can very well transfer an employee to yet another place after revocation of suspension even otherwise keeping the exigencies of service into consideration as also that posting such a person on the same post and place where a departmental enquiry was still going on against him, may not be 2 2015 (4) MPLJ 406 3 2005 (4) MPHT 352 4 WPS No. 3146/2015 5 WPS No. 5039/2015 6 in the interest of the administration since there could be every possibility of such an employee to tamper with the evidence and not allow a free and fair enquiry to be held. We may also notice that during period of suspension, the Head Quarter of an employee is always fixed away from the place of posting which has an object and reason. The same will be defeated if it is held that the employee has a lien on place also. 14. The question of law for which the reference was made has been answered in the preceding paragraphs of this order. To sum, it cannot be a thumb rule that an employee whose suspension has been revoked has a right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting." 7. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it is well settled that an employee whose suspension has been revoked does not acquire any vested or enforceable right to be posted at the same place where he was serving prior to his suspension. The employee has a lien only on the post and not on the place of posting. The competent authority is fully empowered to determine and alter the place of posting in accordance with administrative exigencies and the 7 requirements of public service. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that, upon revocation of suspension, he was entitled to be reposted at his previous place of posting is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness, or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib