An employee has a lien on the post, not the place of posting, upon revocation of suspension.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Ramnagar, was placed under suspension following allegations of irregularities in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme

Upon the revocation of his suspension, he was reinstated but posted to a different school (Govt. Primary School, Dhanjara) via a posting order dated 25.05.2026

The petitioner challenged this order, seeking a direction for his reposting to his original school, contending that in the absence of a finding of misconduct or a substitute teacher being appointed, the transfer was arbitrary

1. Whether an employee, upon revocation of suspension, has a legal right to be posted back to the original place of posting they held prior to the suspension

The court primarily relied on the legal principle established by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in L.P. Saket v. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (WPS No. 7269/2017)

This precedent mandates that an employee has a lien only on the "post" and not on a specific "place of posting"

the court referred to the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which supports the authority of the administration to transfer an employee post-suspension to ensure a fair departmental inquiry and prevent tampering with evidence

The court applied the rule from L.P. Saket to the facts of the petitioner’s case, noting that the revocation of suspension does not create a vested right to return to the original school

The court reasoned that the competent authority retains the power to determine the place of posting based on administrative exigencies and public service requirements

It dismissed the petitioner's argument that the lack of a finding of misconduct necessitated a return to the original school, observing that keeping an employee away from the original site of the alleged misconduct is often necessary for the integrity of the administration and the prevention of evidence tampering

The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned posting order dated 25.05.2026. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit