CGHC010326482026 2026:CGHC:37959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6325 of 2026 Shivani Mishra D/o Rakesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (Science), T-Cadre, At Government Girls Ashram School, Block - Gariaband, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh, R/o Ward No. 5, Pratappur Naka, Godhanpur, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District Gariaband Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer District Gariaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Block Education Officer Gariaband, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh 8 - Block Education Officer, Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. AG along with Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 24/08/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.25 18:38:24 +0530 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the transfer order dated 06.08.2026, whereby the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Teacher (Science), T-Cadre, at Government Girls Ashram School, Gariaband, District Gariaband, has been transferred to Government Primary School, Hardi Bazar, Block Pali, District Korba. The impugned order states that the transfer has been made on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned transfer order, the policy framed under the Rationalization Policy has not been followed and, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is not in accordance with the applicable policy. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in W.A. No.674 of 2025 (Shashi Shrivastava Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench, while considering the grievance arising out of the implementation of the rationalization exercise, has dealt with the manner in which the grievance of an employee is required to be considered. It is further submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to violation of the policy or resolution, the petitioner may raise such grievance before the authority who has passed the impugned transfer order and, if such representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned State Counsel, this Court is of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to alleged violation of the applicable policy may appropriately be considered by the competent authority. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.1, who has passed the impugned order of transfer, by filing an appropriate representation raising his/her grievance with regard to the alleged violation of the policy/resolution. If the petitioner prefers such representation within a period of 10 days from today, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance raised by the petitioner and the competent authority shall consider the representation independently in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu