Transfer authorities must consider serious health-based posting requests consistently and without discrimination.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (LB) at Government Higher Secondary School, Banari, District Janjgir-Champa, was transferred on 25 July 2025 to Government Higher Secondary School, Parasdih, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, under a rationalisation scheme.

She challenged the transfer and relieving orders, stating that she was suffering from acute cancer and sought retention at Banari or posting at a nearby place on medical and humanitarian grounds.

Her representation before the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee was rejected on 10 September 2025 on the ground that the rationalisation policy contained no provision for cancelling a transfer on health grounds.

Her subsequent challenge to the Joint Director’s order dated 19 November 2025 also formed part of the writ proceedings.

The petitioner relied on the case of another similarly situated teacher, Praveen Shukla, whose transfer had allegedly been interfered with by the Committee.

The State defended the Committee’s decision as having been passed after consideration of all relevant aspects.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request for reconsideration of her transfer, solely on the ground that the rationalisation policy did not provide for consideration of health grounds, was discriminatory when relief had allegedly been granted to a similarly situated teacher.

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s acute cancer and humanitarian circumstances, the competent authority should reconsider her posting at Banari or a nearby place.

The Court applied the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment in administrative decision-making, holding that similarly situated persons should not be treated differently without a rational basis.

It also applied the principle that transfer matters, though ordinarily within the administrative domain, may warrant judicial intervention or reconsideration where relevant humanitarian circumstances—particularly a serious medical condition—are ignored or considered inconsistently.

The Court did not cite any specific statute, regulation, or judicial precedent; it considered the rationalisation policy and the petitioner’s medical circumstances.

The Court accepted that the petitioner was suffering from acute cancer and had sought sympathetic consideration of her transfer on medical grounds.

Although the Committee rejected her representation by relying on the absence of an express provision in the rationalisation policy, the Court noted that the Committee had allegedly interfered with the transfer of similarly situated teacher Praveen Shukla.

The failure to extend comparable consideration to the petitioner appeared discriminatory, particularly in light of her serious medical condition.

Rather than directly quashing all impugned orders or ordering a particular posting, the Court directed the competent authority to undertake a fresh, reasoned consideration of the petitioner’s case, specifically taking her medical condition into account.

The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation, with supporting documents, to the Director of Public Instruction within ten days.

The Director was directed to consider and decide the representation within fifteen days of its receipt, particularly in light of the petitioner’s acute cancer, and to pass an appropriate order regarding her posting at Banari or a nearby place.

No costs were awarded.