Transferring an E-cadre employee to a T-cadre institution is prima facie contrary to the binding government circular.

The petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II working in the Office of the District Education Officer, Raigarh, challenged the transfer order dated 06.08.2026, by which he was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Hati, District Raigarh.

He contended that he belonged to the E-cadre, whereas the transferee school belonged to the T-cadre, and that the State Government circular dated 05.03.2019 prohibited posting an E-cadre employee in a T-cadre establishment.

A certificate issued by the Principal of the transferee school stated that the school was a T-cadre institution.

The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the District Education Officer, who had initiated steps for proposing an alternative posting in an E-cadre school.

Whether the transfer of an E-cadre employee to a T-cadre school was contrary to the State Government circular dated 05.03.2019.

Whether the petitioner’s representation should be directed to be considered and decided, and whether the impugned transfer order should remain in abeyance pending such decision.

The Court applied the State Government circular dated 05.03.2019, which, on the facts presented, prohibited the posting of an E-cadre employee in a T-cadre establishment.

The Court further applied the administrative-law principle that a transfer order must conform to binding governmental instructions and that a representation raising an apparent violation of such instructions must be considered in accordance with law.

No statute or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that it was undisputed that the petitioner belonged to the E-cadre and that the transferee school had been certified by its Principal to be a T-cadre institution.

Accordingly, the transfer appeared prima facie inconsistent with the circular dated 05.03.2019.

However, since the petitioner’s representation was already pending and the District Education Officer had formulated a proposal for posting him in an E-cadre school, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the competent authority to decide the representation rather than finally adjudicate the transfer’s validity at that stage.

Until the representation was finally decided, the operation and effect of the transfer order dated 06.08.2026 were stayed.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent.