The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that administrative transfers of government employees cannot be executed in isolation from their familial and educational obligations. In a significant development for public service law, the Court balanced institutional exigency against the right to education of children, directing that a transferred officer continue in his current posting until the end of the academic year.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Robinson Sudhir Kujur, is a Class-II officer serving as Assistant Director in the Agriculture Department. He has been posted at the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Office in Ramanujganj, Balrampur since 2017. In June 2025, he was transferred to Sukma on grounds of administrative exigency. The petitioner challenged the transfer order, arguing that it would severely disrupt the education of his two minor children, who are enrolled in an English-medium school in Ramanujganj.
Procedural History
- 2025: Transfer order issued on 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-2)
- 2025: Petitioner filed representation before the State Transfer Committee, which dismissed it without addressing substantive grounds
- 2025: Petitioner filed a writ petition; Court initially directed him to exhaust internal remedies
- 2025: Committee again dismissed representation without reasoned order
- 2026: Writ petition returned for final adjudication
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the transfer order dated 30.06.2025; (2) direction to continue in current posting; (3) production of service records; and (4) any other relief deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative transfer of a government servant can be upheld under service law when it causes demonstrable and disproportionate hardship to the education of minor children, particularly where no immediate replacement has been appointed and the officer remains in service.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on SK. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India and Director of School Education, Madras v. O. Karuppa Thevan to argue that the welfare of children, especially their right to uninterrupted education, is a legitimate consideration under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the petitioner had served seven years at the same location, the transfer was not based on any disciplinary or performance-related ground, and no official had been posted in his place despite the order being issued six months prior.
For the Respondent
The State contended that transfers are purely administrative functions governed by service rules and that courts must show restraint in interfering unless mala fides or arbitrariness is proven. It argued that the petitioner’s personal circumstances, however sympathetic, do not override the State’s prerogative to reorganize its workforce.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the State’s broad discretion in administrative transfers but held that such discretion is not absolute. It examined the principles laid down in SK. Nausad Rahaman, where the Supreme Court recognized that transfer orders affecting children’s education must be scrutinized for reasonableness and proportionality. The Court noted that the State Transfer Committee had failed to record any reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s representation, violating the doctrine of audi alteram partem.
"The right to education of minor children is not a mere convenience but a facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, particularly when the child is in a formative stage of learning."
The Court further observed that the petitioner had not been relieved from his current posting, and no successor had been appointed, rendering the transfer order practically inoperative. This factual reality, combined with the lack of justification for the transfer, tipped the balance in favor of interim relief.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s challenge to the transfer order was dismissed, but the Court directed the State to allow him to continue working at his current posting in Ramanujganj until 31.03.2026. The Court held that administrative exigency cannot override the educational continuity of minor children when no replacement has been made and the transfer lacks reasoned justification.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Educational Continuity Is a Legitimate Consideration
- Practitioners must now raise children’s education as a material factor in transfer petitions under service law
- Courts are likely to examine the academic stage of children (e.g., Class 7 and below) as a proxy for vulnerability
- Failure to consider educational impact may render a transfer order procedurally unreasonable
Non-Implementation of Transfer Orders Creates De Facto Continuity
- If a transfer order is not implemented and no successor is posted, the employee’s continued service at the old station becomes legally sustainable
- This creates a de facto extension of posting, which can be invoked to seek interim relief pending final adjudication
- Practitioners should document non-replacement and non-relief as key evidence in writ petitions
Reasoned Orders by Transfer Committees Are Mandatory
- Administrative bodies must record reasons for rejecting representations, even if not bound by formal adjudication
- Blanket dismissals without analysis violate natural justice and invite judicial intervention
- Service departments must now maintain transparent records of transfer decisions to avoid litigation
