The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that transfers of staff in Eklavya Model Residential Schools cannot be effected arbitrarily, especially when grounded in unproven allegations. The judgment underscores that procedural fairness, statutory compliance, and institutional guidelines must precede any administrative action affecting service conditions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Anjana Tirkey, a Vice-Principal at the Girls Eklavya Model Residential School in Sanna, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, was transferred by orders dated 07.12.2023 and 11.12.2023 to the Government Higher Secondary School at Tildega, Block Patthalgaon. The transfer was accompanied by an order handing over her duties to respondent No. 5, Ku. Asha Tirkey, a Lecturer. The petitioner challenged these orders as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of binding administrative instructions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been serving as Vice-Principal at the Eklavya School since her appointment.
- On 23.12.2022, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Level Tribal Welfare Residential and Ashram Educational Institute Committee, issued a circular mandating that any transfer or removal of staff from Eklavya Adarsh Residential Schools requires a prior enquiry, detailed report, and approval from the competent authority.
- A prior instruction dated 27.05.2019 emphasized continuity of educational services and cautioned against abrupt transfers that disrupt school functioning.
- No enquiry was conducted, no report prepared, and no approval obtained prior to the impugned orders.
- The petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard before the transfer order was issued.
- The Additional Collector and Collector of Jashpur issued the transfer and handover orders, despite the State Government being the appointing authority under the relevant service rules.
Procedural History
- 07.12.2023: Transfer order issued by the Collector, Jashpur, directing petitioner’s transfer to Govt. HSS Tildega.
- 11.12.2023: Handover order issued, assigning petitioner’s duties to respondent No. 5.
- 20.12.2023: Writ Petition (WPS No. 20 of 2024) filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 05.01.2024: High Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned orders.
- 07.05.2026: Final judgment delivered by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The transfer was illegal because it violated the 23.12.2022 circular, bypassed the appointing authority (State Government), and denied the right to be heard. The petitioner was not informed of any allegations or given a chance to defend herself.
Respondents’ Position: The transfer was necessitated due to levelling of allegations against the petitioner and an enquiry had been initiated. However, no formal enquiry report or chargesheet was produced before the Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer and handover orders dated 07.12.2023 and 11.12.2023, restoration to her original posting, and a direction that no further action be taken without due process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative transfer of staff in Eklavya Model Residential Schools can be lawfully effected without prior enquiry, written report, approval from the competent authority, and adherence to the principles of natural justice, as mandated by binding departmental instructions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on the Commissioner-cum-Secretary’s circular dated 23.12.2022, which explicitly required a prior enquiry and approval before any transfer or removal. She cited State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor to emphasize that administrative orders violating statutory or departmental guidelines are void. She further invoked A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India to argue that the absence of a hearing rendered the order violative of natural justice. The petitioner’s service was not in question; the transfer was punitive in effect without any procedural safeguards.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel contended that the transfer was prompted by allegations against the petitioner and that an enquiry was underway. However, no evidence of such allegations, the nature of the enquiry, or its outcome was placed before the Court. No statutory provision or rule was cited to justify bypassing the 23.12.2022 circular or the appointing authority’s jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the 23.12.2022 circular was not a mere administrative suggestion but a binding directive issued under the authority of the State’s Tribal Welfare Department. The circular was issued to ensure institutional stability and accountability in Eklavya Schools, which serve marginalized tribal communities. The Court held that such guidelines, once issued, become part of the administrative framework and cannot be disregarded at will.
"The State cannot invoke vague allegations to bypass a mandatory procedural requirement that was expressly laid down to prevent arbitrariness."
The Court further noted that the Additional Collector and Collector were not the appointing authorities under the relevant service rules. Only the State Government had the power to transfer or remove the petitioner. The delegation of such power without statutory backing was ultra vires.
The Court emphasized that even if allegations existed, the principle of audi alteram partem could not be ignored. The petitioner was entitled to know the charges, to present her side, and to have a fair opportunity before any adverse action. The absence of any such opportunity rendered the orders legally unsustainable.
The Court also rejected the State’s attempt to justify the transfer as an administrative exigency, noting that exigency cannot override established procedural safeguards, particularly in institutions designed to protect vulnerable communities.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue her service at her present posting at the Girls Eklavya Model Residential School, Sanna, until further order. The impugned orders dated 07.12.2023 and 11.12.2023 are set aside. The State is at liberty to initiate a fresh, lawful transfer process only after conducting a proper enquiry, obtaining the required report, securing approval from the competent authority, and affording the petitioner a full opportunity of hearing. No further action shall be taken against the petitioner in relation to the impugned orders.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Guidelines Are Binding, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now treat departmental circulars like the 23.12.2022 instruction as enforceable legal norms, not advisory notes.
- Any transfer or disciplinary action violating such guidelines is liable to be quashed, even if the underlying reason appears plausible.
Natural Justice Applies Even in Preliminary Stages
- Allegations alone, without notice or hearing, cannot justify adverse administrative action.
- In service matters involving public institutions serving tribal communities, the threshold for procedural fairness is heightened.
Transfer Authority Must Be Statutorily Delegated
-
Only the appointing authority (State Government) may effect transfers unless a valid delegation exists.
-
District-level officers cannot assume powers not conferred by rule or statute.
-
Always verify the appointing authority and delegation of powers before challenging or defending a transfer.
-
Demand production of the circulars and guidelines cited by the department - they are often decisive.
-
In writ petitions, insist on the record of enquiry and notice of charges - absence of these renders the order void.
