1 CGHC010342982026 2026:CGHC:42744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6505 of 2026 Rajkumari Soni W/o Ravi Kumar Aged About 42 Years R/o 59/15/a, Risdi Pipe Line, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Vibha Tandey Posted As Lecturer (Commerce) Swami Atmanand Utkristh Hindi Medium School, Chaitma Block Pali District - Korba Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer-cum- deputation order dated 25.08.2026, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, PWD Rampur, RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.10.01 18:17:19 +0530 2 District Korba, to Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium School, Chaitma, Block Pali, District Korba. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, PWD Rampur, and had joined there only in December 2025 pursuant to the earlier orders/administrative proceedings. It is submitted that, within a period of about eight months, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 has again directed her posting to another institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order describes the petitioner's posting as a “mutual transfer”, whereas the petitioner had neither submitted any application seeking such mutual transfer nor given her consent for being transferred or sent on deputation. It is submitted that the petitioner has specifically disputed the basis on which the impugned order has been passed. 3. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order and submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Writ Petition. 5. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 could have been passed against the petitioner by treating her posting as a mutual transfer/deputation, when the petitioner has specifically denied having sought such transfer or having furnished her consent for the same. 6. From the material placed on record, the respondents have not been able to establish that the petitioner had submitted any application seeking the 3 alleged mutual transfer or had otherwise expressed her consent for the movement contemplated under the impugned order. 7. The expression “mutual transfer” necessarily postulates the existence of an understanding or consent between the concerned employees. Where the employee herself specifically disputes having sought or consented to such transfer, the authority passing the order must be in a position to demonstrate the factual basis for recording the posting as a mutual transfer. 8. In the present case, no such material has been brought on record to establish the petitioner's consent. The respondents, therefore, cannot sustain the impugned order insofar as it proceeds on the premise that the petitioner's movement was pursuant to a mutual transfer. 9. The fact that the petitioner had joined at her present place of posting only in December 2025 and was sought to be moved again by the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 is also a relevant circumstance. However, the short period of posting, by itself, would not invalidate an otherwise lawful order of transfer. The material circumstance in the present case is that the impugned order proceeds by describing the petitioner's posting as a mutual transfer, without the respondents being able to establish the petitioner's consent thereto. 10. So far as the reference to deputation in the impugned order is concerned, the respondents cannot derive authority for such transfer merely from the description of the same as a mutual transfer when the foundational fact of the petitioner's consent to such arrangement has itself not been established. 11. This Court is conscious of the fact that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and that the competent authority is entitled to take appropriate administrative decisions in the interest of administration. However, such 4 administrative power has to be exercised on the basis of the facts and circumstances existing on record. In the present case, the very basis on which the petitioner's posting has been described as a mutual transfer is not established. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer-cum-deputation order dated 25.08.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer-cum- deputation order dated 25.08.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Consequently, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue at her present place of posting, i.e. Government Higher Secondary School, PWD Rampur, District Korba. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul