KAMLESH KUMAR TANWAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010444122026 2026:CGHC:46953
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date:
2026.11.05
17:00:30
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
WPS No. 8087 of 2026
Kamlesh Kumar Tanwar S/o Nandlal Singh Aged About 42 Years
Occupation- Assistant Block Education Officer Korba, Block Korba
District Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Deputy Secretary, Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 – Director, Public Instruction Directorate Public Instruction, Indiravati
Bhavan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 – Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer, Korba District Korba (C.G.)
6 - Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Principal,
Government Higher Secondary School, Rajgamar, District - Korba
(C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
05/11/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the
impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2026 (Annexure P/1),
whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the Office of the
Block Education Officer, Korba, to the Office of the Block
Education Officer, Makadi, District Kondagaon, along with the
consequential relieving order dated 03.11.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer
(ABEO) and has been continuously discharging his duties on the
said post. He submits that the petitioner was subsequently posted
as In-charge Block Education Officer (BEO), Korba. He further
submits that, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been
transferred to District Kondagaon, whereas his wife is also a
government employee and is posted at Deepka, Korba, which is
contrary to the Transfer Policy of the State Government,
particularly Clause 3.13 thereof, which provides that where both
husband and wife are government employees, their posting
should, as far as possible, be made at the same place. The
petitioner has accordingly made representations requesting
consideration of their posting at the same place. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner has questioned the posting of

3
respondent No. 6 as BEO, Korba, by filing a writ petition bearing
WPS No. 6884/2026, wherein notices were issued to the State as
well as the concerned respondents. It is contended that, on
account of filing of the said writ petition, the petitioner has been
transferred from his present place of posting to Block Makadi, vide
order dated 03.11.2026, which is situated at a distance of
approximately 400 kilometres. He further submits that the
petitioner was relieved immediately on the very same day, i.e.,
03.11.2026, whereas, as per the transfer policy of the State
Government, an employee is required to be relieved within a
period of 10 days from the date of issuance of the transfer order.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel, while opposing the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the posting of respondent No. 6 as Block Education Officer,
Korba, is under challenge in a separate writ petition and
constitutes a distinct cause of action, which may be considered
and decided in the said petition. The present petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his transfer from
Korba to Block Makadi, and the said order has been passed on
account of administrative exigency. He further submits that the
petitioner has been posted at the present place of posting since
2019. So far as the contention regarding posting of husband and
wife at the same place is concerned, Clause 8 of the Transfer
Policy provides that any employee aggrieved by the transfer order
may raise his grievance before the Committee constituted under
the said clause. If the petitioner submits a representation before

4
the said Committee, the same shall be considered in accordance
with law and the Transfer Policy of the State Government, and an
appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
contention of the State regarding administrative exigency is not
correct, as no other employee has been posted in place of the
petitioner at his present place of posting. However, learned
counsel submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a
representation before the Committee constituted under Clause 8
of the Transfer Policy.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, particularly with regard to the posting of the petitioner at
Kondagaon, which is situated at a distance of approximately 400
kilometres, and the fact that the wife of the petitioner is working as
Patwari at Deepka, Korba, the petitioner is permitted to approach
the Committee constituted under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy
by submitting a representation within a period of seven days from
today. In the event of filing of such representation, the said
Committee shall consider and decide the same in accordance with
law and the Transfer Policy of the State Government, taking into
consideration the circumstances of the petitioner, within a further
period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

5
7. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention that the petitioner
herein has earlier preferred a writ petition questioning the posting
of respondent No. 6 as BEO, which is pending consideration
before this Court. Since allegations of mala fides have also been
raised against the authorities in respect of the transfer of the
petitioner, the impugned transfer order and the consequential
relieving order, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner,
shall remain stayed till the decision is taken on the representation
by the aforesaid Committee.
8. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of .
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar