Authorities must decide the teacher’s transfer representation by a reasoned order under the applicable policy.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher posted at Government Primary School, Padkikala, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, contended that she had been transferred on mutual request to Government Primary School, Bandhpara, Block Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, pursuant to transfer order dated 25.08.2026.

She alleged that the District Education Officer, Kabirdham, was not relieving her to enable her to join at the transferred school.

The State submitted that the petitioner’s existing school was an E-Cadre school, whereas the transferee school was a T-Cadre school, and that the prevailing policy did not permit transfer from an E-Cadre school to a T-Cadre school.

It further stated that the transfer order was being modified and that the petitioner’s representation dated 15.09.2026 remained liable to be considered by the competent authority.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be relieved from her existing posting pursuant to the mutual-transfer order dated 25.08.2026.

Whether the competent authorities were required to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 15.09.2026 in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s claim or remit the matter to the competent authorities for a reasoned decision.

The Court applied the principle that matters concerning transfer and posting of government employees must be determined by the competent administrative authority in accordance with the applicable government policy and relevant service rules.

Where the employee’s representation concerning transfer remains pending, the authority must consider it independently and pass a reasoned and appropriate order within a stipulated period.

The Court did not determine the substantive validity of the transfer or express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

The State raised a policy-based objection that transfer from an E-Cadre school to a T-Cadre school was impermissible and indicated that the transfer order was being modified.

Since the dispute involved the classification of the schools and the application of the prevailing transfer policy—matters requiring administrative consideration—the Court declined to direct the petitioner’s immediate relieving or decide the validity of the transfer on merits.

Instead, it required the District Education Officer, Kabirdham, and the Secretary, Department of School Education, to reconsider the petitioner’s pending representation in accordance with law and the governing policy, thereby preserving the authorities’ power to take an independent decision.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the petitioner’s claim and that the authorities must decide the matter independently under the applicable rules and policy.