Temporary administrative reshuffling to maintain school discipline does not constitute a transfer or deputation requiring employee consent.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (Physics) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Pali, challenged an order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the District Education Officer (Respondent No. 4).

The order directed the petitioner to discharge duties at Swami Atmanand Upgraded Hindi Medium School, Tiwarta, following an altercation between the petitioner and the school Principal on 16.06.2026.

The petitioner contended the order was an illegal "attachment" or "deputation" without consent, violated Clause 3.17 of the State’s Transfer Policy, and was passed by an incompetent authority.

The State maintained the order was a temporary administrative arrangement to restore the academic environment.

1. Whether the impugned order directing the petitioner to work at a different school constitutes a "transfer" or "deputation" in violation of the State Transfer Policy and jurisdiction.

2. Whether administrative exigencies arising from workplace conflict justify temporary re-assignment of duties without the employee’s consent.

The Court applied the principle of administrative exigency, holding that employers possess the inherent domain to make temporary arrangements for smooth functioning.

It examined Clause 3.17 of the State Transfer Policy regarding the prohibition of "attachment" of employees.

The court further relied on the doctrine of judicial restraint in administrative matters, affirming that unless an order is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions, the judiciary should not interfere with interim administrative measures.

The Court observed that the impugned order was not a formal transfer or a deputation to a society-managed school, but a "temporary administrative arrangement".

The Court found that the DEO acted to maintain academic discipline and a peaceful atmosphere following the petitioner’s altercation with the Principal.

Regarding the petitioner's claim of policy violation (Clause 3.17), the Court reasoned that such protections do not apply to interim measures intended to resolve immediate institutional disturbances.

The court emphasized that the order was transient, remaining operative only until a final decision is taken by the competent authority, and thus did not infringe upon the petitioner's legal rights or the jurisdictional limits of the DEO.

The Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in the DEO’s action.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to interfere with the temporary posting.