State Government Cannot Transfer University Employees to a Directorate Without Statutory Authority.

The petitioner, Registrar of Hem Chand Yadav University, Durg, challenged the State Government’s order dated 29 September 2026 posting him to the Directorate of Higher Education, Raipur.

He contended that Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Universities Services Rules, 1983, permitted transfer only between universities.

The State relied on a 1999 amendment substituting “State Government” for “Chancellor” in Rule 22 and argued that the order was an attachment made because of a pending departmental enquiry.

The State identified no statutory provision authorising attachment to the Directorate.

Whether amended Rule 22 empowered the State Government to transfer a university employee from a university to the Directorate of Higher Education

Whether the State Government could attach the petitioner to the Directorate because of a pending departmental enquiry in the absence of an identified statutory source of power

Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Universities Services Rules, 1983, as amended on 23 March 1999, places the transfer power in the State Government rather than the Chancellor; however, the power remains confined to transfers of a member of the service from one university to another.

The State Government must also identify statutory or rule-based authority for an attachment of a university employee to a government department or directorate.

The pendency of a departmental enquiry, by itself, does not confer such jurisdiction.

The Court considered the effect of the order rather than its label: it removed the petitioner from his university post and directed him to work under the Directorate.

Rule 22, even as amended, contemplated inter-university transfers and did not authorise a transfer outside the university establishment.

Nor could the order be sustained as an attachment, because the State pointed to no statutory provision or rule empowering it to attach a university employee to the Directorate.

The pending enquiry did not supply the missing authority.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 29 September 2026, allowed the writ petition, and left the State at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.