1 CGHC010368892026 2026:CGHC:41139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6926 of 2026 Smt. Shipra Biswas W/o Shri Pradeep Biswas Aged About 56 Years Occupation - Service, Posted As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Matoli, Block - Koyalibeda, Distt. - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh R/o P.V. - 46, Ward No. 1, Pakhanjur, Distt. - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. State Level Transfer Committee Through Its President, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Divisional Joint Director Jagdalpur, Education Division Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh 5. Collector Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 6. District Education Officer Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 7. District Education Officer, Bijapur Distt. Bijapur Chhattisgarh 8. Block Education Officer Koyalibeda, Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.22 17:21:57 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 22/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition constitutes the second round of litigation between the parties. In the earlier writ petition, the same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation within a period of ten days. The concerned Committee was directed to consider and decide the said representation within a period of twenty-five days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his representation, which has been considered and rejected by the Committee. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.09.2026, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee has rejected the representation merely by observing that the transfer of the petitioner was made on account of administrative exigency, without assigning any reasons or furnishing any explanation in support thereof. It is further submitted that the object and intent of Clause 3.13 of the transfer policy have not been considered by the Committee and that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected without due consideration of the grounds raised therein. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the policy dated 05.06.2025 is not applicable to the petitioner, as the said policy 3 specifically provides that the same shall not be applicable to the employee doing teaching work of the School Education Department, whereas the petitioner admittedly falls within the category of teachers. It is further submitted that, in any event, the Committee has considered the representation of the petitioner and has rejected the same upon finding that the transfer was necessitated by administrative exigency. Thus, no illegality or infirmity can be said to exist in the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the record, particularly the impugned order passed by the Committee, it is evident that the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 is not applicable to the petitioner, she being doing teaching work in the School Education Department. It is further evident that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the representation submitted by the petitioner has been duly considered and decided by the competent Committee. 6. In view of the aforesaid, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 10.09.2026. The present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti