1 / 4 2026:CGHC:26251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4848 of 2026 Smt. Sushma Chandrakar W/o- Shri Bhairav Tripathi, Aged About 45 Years Posted As Head Master Primary School Chatod, Block Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, R/o- Veerbhadra Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Under Secretary, School Education Department , Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The District Education Officer (D E O) District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5. The Collector, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Asutosh Trivedi along with Ms. Poulami Das, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.06.30 10:39:00 +0530 2 / 4 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has called in question the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 whereby she has been transferred from Government Primary School, Chatod, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari to Government Primary School, Doomarpara, Mongraghan Block, District Dhamtari. It is submitted that the impugned transfer order is a colourable exercise of power and has been issued with mala fide intention. Elaborating the submission, learned counsel contends that the petitioner, being the Head of the Primary School at Chatod, had lodged a complaint regarding illegal encroachment by certain private persons over the school premises. However, instead of taking action against the encroachers, the authorities issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, to which she submitted her reply. It is argued that immediately thereafter the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order, which clearly establishes that the transfer has been effected as a punitive measure and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. He further placed his reliance in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and 3 / 4 submits that the petitioner has been posted at Government Primary School, Chatod since the year 2023 and the impugned transfer has been made purely on account of administrative exigency. It is further submitted that the transfer is within the same district and is not voilative of any policy. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order does not contain any adverse or stigmatic remarks against the petitioner. It is also contended that though the petitioner has alleged mala fides, neither any specific officer against whom such allegations are made has been impleaded as a party respondent nor are there any specific pleadings substantiating the allegations of mala fides. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds no ground warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026 reveals that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds and the transfer is within the same district. The impugned order is innocuous in nature and does not contain any adverse or stigmatic remark against the petitioner. 5. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides and is a colourable exercise of power on account of the complaint made by her regarding alleged 4 / 4 encroachment over the school premises. However, except making a bald allegation, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the plea of mala fides. 6. It is well settled that allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with full particulars and the person against whom such allegations are made must necessarily be impleaded as a party to enable him to answer the allegations. In the present case, neither any officer has been impleaded in his personal capacity nor have any specific averments been made establishing personal bias or extraneous consideration. In the absence of proper pleadings and necessary parties, the plea of mala fides cannot be entertained. 7. It is equally well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and unless the order of transfer is shown to be in violation of any statutory provision, vitiated by proven mala fides or passed by an incompetent authority, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily does not interfere with such administrative decisions. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti