The High Court held that posting a lecturer from an office-based assignment to a school post, pursuant to government policy, does not amount to malafide or arbitrariness solely due to a pending criminal dispute between the employee and another. The decision affirms established law limiting High Court intervention in transfer orders of government employees, unless egregious malice or procedural violations are clearly demonstrated. Precedent value for transfer and service jurisprudence in Chhattisgarh’s education sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/12047/2025 of SMT. OMESHWAREE NAIK Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010432442025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law (Transfer and Posting of Government Servants – Education Department) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a transfer order, issued pursuant to government policy and routine administrative requirements, amounts to malafide or arbitrariness when the transfer coincides with a pending criminal dispute between employees. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that if a transfer order is issued pursuant to a general government decision or policy, and the employee has served more than three years in the present posting, such transfer does not suffer from malafide or arbitrariness. Mere existence of a dispute or criminal proceedings between colleagues does not, by itself, taint the administrative order as illegal, especially when alternative remedies are available before appropriate forums. The allegation of malice can be agitated in the criminal proceedings, not in service matters unless directly proven. No illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned transfer. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was a lecturer posted as Assistant Program Coordinator at a District Project Office. A transfer order moved her to the District Education Office, Raigarh. She alleged malafide due to an inter-se dispute and pending criminal case against respondent No. 8, asserting the transfer was a reprisal. The State countered that the substantive post is that of a lecturer, and the transfer aligns with government policy to restore teaching staff to schools. The Court found no evidence of malafide or legal violation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh, especially regarding judicial interference in transfer matters |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states, especially in service law and government education sector disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that a government employee’s transfer, when part of an established government policy, will not be interfered with by the High Court unless clear, cogent evidence of malafide or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
- Clarifies that the existence of criminal proceedings between colleagues does not, by itself, make the administrative transfer order suspect or legally infirm.
- Affirms that grievances regarding the criminal aspect should be resolved in the appropriate criminal forum, not through writ petitions challenging administrative transfers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s argument that her transfer order was tainted with malafide due to an ongoing criminal dispute with another staff member.
- It noted the substantive status of the petitioner as a lecturer and aligned itself with government policy directing such staff, who are not imparting education due to alternate assignments, to resume teaching duties.
- The impugned transfer was found to be consistent with this policy and not violative of any legal provisions.
- The Court emphasized that mere allegations of dispute or malafide, unsupported by concrete evidence, are insufficient grounds for the High Court to interfere with a routine transfer order.
- The Court held that the proper forum for addressing alleged malafide linked to criminal matters is the criminal court itself and declined to find any illegality or procedural irregularity in the administrative transfer challenged via writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the transfer order was actuated with malafide, being in reprisal for a criminal complaint lodged by her against respondent No. 8.
- Claimed that both she and another witness in the case were transferred at the behest of respondent No. 8.
Respondent (State)
- Contended that the petitioner’s substantive post is that of a lecturer.
- Pointed out that she had remained posted in the present role for more than three years.
- Stated the transfer was part of a general policy to deploy lecturers in teaching roles in schools, not office assignments.
- Argued the transfer was legitimate and routine, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a government-employed lecturer, was serving as Assistant Program Coordinator in the District Project Office, Samagra Shiksha, Korba. An inter-personal dispute arose between her and respondent No. 8, leading to an FIR and ongoing criminal proceedings against respondent No. 8. She challenged her transfer to the District Education Office, Raigarh, alleging the move was retaliatory and influenced by respondent No. 8. The State asserted that, as per standing government policy, teachers and lecturers deployed in non-teaching administrative roles were being reverted to regular teaching positions, and her transfer formed part of this exercise.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment referred to government decisions and policies mandating that lecturers or teachers engaged in non-teaching work be redeployed to teaching assignments in schools. No particular statutory provisions, rules, or broader constitutional provisions were interpreted or “read down” in the judgment. The emphasis was on the administrative powers of the employer (State) to assign and transfer staff as per service exigencies and rationalization policies.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judicial interference in transfer/posting is limited unless there is proven malafide or clear legal violation; application of established principles reaffirmed.