Transfer representation citing disability and vacant posts must receive a reasoned decision from the competent authority.

The petitioner, an Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer posted at District Court, Bilaspur, challenged the transfer order dated 07.09.2026 by which he was transferred to Rajnandgaon and Respondent No. 3 was posted in his place.

The petitioner asserted that he has a 50% locomotor disability, faces substantial difficulty in mobility and long-distance travel, is undergoing treatment at Bilaspur, and has Korba as his home town.

He further contended that two posts of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer were vacant at Bilaspur and that he could be accommodated against one of them without administrative prejudice.

Although he had approached the competent authority by representation, he claimed that his grievance had not been properly considered.

Before the High Court, he sought permission to submit a fresh representation enclosing the relevant material.

The State agreed that such representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Whether, in the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, including his 50% locomotor disability, medical condition, and the alleged availability of vacant posts at Bilaspur, he should be permitted to submit a fresh representation against the transfer order.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s fresh representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

Whether the transfer order dated 07.09.2026 should be adjudicated on its merits in the present petition.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that an employee’s representation concerning a service grievance must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and decided through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court also proceeded on the settled procedural principle that it may dispose of a writ petition by directing consideration of a representation without adjudicating the underlying merits of the challenge.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted the petitioner’s specific assertions regarding his 50% locomotor disability, medical condition, treatment at Bilaspur, home town, and the availability of two vacant posts at Bilaspur.

Since these circumstances had been raised before the competent authority but, according to the petitioner, had not been appropriately considered, and since the State agreed to examine a fresh representation, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a limited procedural remedy.

Without examining the legality or merits of the transfer order, the Court directed the petitioner to place all relevant facts and documents before the competent authority, which was required to independently consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation specifically setting out his 50% locomotor disability, medical condition, and the availability of two vacant posts at Bilaspur, within ten days from 17.09.2026.

If submitted within that period, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide it in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within twenty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.