A transfer order already challenged cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent writ petition.

The petitioner, a teacher, challenged his transfer from Government Middle School, Umarada, District Dhamtari, to Gariyaband.

He had previously challenged the transfer in WPS No. 6271 of 2026, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation within 25 days.

The authority rejected the representation on 10 September 2026, after which the petitioner filed the present petition, again challenging the transfer and the rejection order.

He also relied on an ongoing census-related assignment; the State submitted that the assigned work had been completed.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the transfer order again in a subsequent writ petition after having challenged it in an earlier proceeding and obtained a direction for consideration of his representation.

Whether the petitioner could raise his census-work assignment as a fresh ground in the subsequent writ petition.

The Court applied the principle that a party cannot re-agitate a transfer order in a subsequent writ petition where that order was already challenged in earlier proceedings and the Court directed the competent authority to consider the party’s representation.

The Court cited no statute or precedent.

It also noted the State’s submissions that the petitioner’s census work had been completed and that the transfer policy did not apply to him.

The Court held that the transfer order had already been challenged in the earlier writ petition, and the subsequent rejection order merely recorded the competent authority’s decision on the representation in compliance with the earlier direction.

The petitioner therefore could not use the present petition to renew his challenge to the transfer.

Nor could he introduce the census assignment as a fresh ground in this proceeding; in any event, the State submitted that the work had been completed.

The writ petition was dismissed.