Employee Has No Right To Remain At Previous Posting Once Transfer Order Is Implemented: Chhattisgarh High Court
The High Court held that after joining at the transferred place of posting, an employee cannot seek to undo the transfer, as the earlier posting ceases to give rise to any enforceable right.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that once an employee joins at the place of transfer, he acquires no legal right to insist on continuing at his earlier posting, even if a vacancy later becomes available there.
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed against the dismissal of a petition seeking the quashing of a transfer order. The appellant, a Lecturer (History), was declared surplus and transferred to a different school after the counselling process.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, while referring to precedents, held that “the appellant has no legal right to remain at his previous place of posting once the transfer order has been implemented.”
Advocate Goutam Khetrapal appeared for the appellant, while Additional Advocate General Yashwant Singh Thakur represented the State.
Background
The appellant was working as a Lecturer (History) at a Government Girls' Higher Secondary School. After he was declared surplus, he appeared in counselling and was transferred to another district. He joined the new posting, and later filed a writ petition seeking to return to his previous school because a vacancy had arisen for a History Lecturer due to the promotion of the in-charge Principal.
The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. Challenging this dismissal, the appellant filed the present appeal, arguing that he had joined the new post under compulsion and that the transfer violated rationalisation guidelines. He further contended that the vacant post at his earlier school should have been allotted to him.
The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the transfer was made pursuant to rationalisation counselling and the appellant had voluntarily joined at the transferred post. It was argued that after joining, the transfer order had already been given full effect and could not be undone.
Court’s Observation
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Single Judge’s findings and reiterated that courts do not interfere once a transfer has been executed.
The Bench noted that the appellant joined his new posting nearly a month before filing the writ petition, and continued working there. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, the Court emphasised that an employee cannot refuse to comply with a transfer order, join later, and then seek its cancellation.
The Court further referred to its own judgment in Tarun Kanungo v. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein it was held that “once a transfer order has been executed, it ceases to have operative effect, and the remedy lies in issuance of fresh or appropriate orders, not in challenging an already executed transfer.”
Addressing the contention that a vacancy had later arisen in the appellant’s previous school, the Court held that such a development does not revive any right after transfer has been implemented. It noted that the counselling for surplus teachers was conducted, and the appellant participated in the process, resulting in his posting at the new school.
The Bench also noted that similar challenges had been recently dismissed, including in Smt. Pooja Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reinforcing the settled position of law.
Conclusion
The Court held that the appellant had no legal entitlement to continue at his former school after joining at the transferred location, and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:50788-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Goutam Khetrapal
Respondents: Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General