Status quo on transfer maintained pending representation decision during ward's board examinations.

The petitioner, a Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development, challenged a transfer order dated 06.03.2026, which moved her from Seepat, District Bilaspur, to Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa

The petitioner contended that her child is a Class 10 student whose exams were ongoing, with a second phase of improvement exams scheduled for May 2026 under the CBSE policy

Though the transfer order was passed with approval during a ban period, the petitioner argued that relocation would adversely affect her child’s academic career

A representation filed by the petitioner before the departmental transfer committee was pending at the time of the writ

The petitioner had not yet been relieved from her current posting

1. Whether the transfer order should be interdicted or stayed in view of the educational interests of the petitioner’s child during the Class 10 board examination period

2. Whether the respondent-authorities are required to decide on the petitioner's pending representation before the transfer is implemented

The court applied the provisions of the State’s Transfer Policy, which mandates the constitution of a committee to consider grievances and representations against transfer orders

It further relied on the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) policy notification dated 25.06.2025, which allows Class 10 students a second opportunity to appear for examinations to improve results

The court noted the validity of the petitioner’s concern that moving during the Class 10 exam cycle—specifically the improvement exams scheduled for May 2026—could prejudice the student's career

The court observed that the State did not dispute the CBSE’s two-phase examination policy

Reasoning that the petitioner’s representation was already pending before the competent committee, the court determined that judicial intervention was necessary to preserve the status quo until an administrative decision was reached

The court linked the necessity of interim protection to the fact that the petitioner had not yet been relieved from her duties

Crucially, the court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the petitioner’s posting until the representation is decided

The final holding ensures that the petitioner remains at her current post in Seepat, Bilaspur, until the conclusion of her child's examination process or the committee's decision