The Chhattisgarh High Court held that once a government employee joins a transferred post, they lose any legal right to remain at or return to their previous posting. The Bench clarified that “the appellant has no legal right to remain at his previous place of posting once the transfer order has been implemented.”
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently made it clear that once a government employee joins a new place of posting after a transfer, he cannot later claim any legal right to go back to his earlier place of work, even if a vacancy arises there later on.
The Court stated that after the transfer order is carried out, the employee cannot demand to continue at the old posting.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad gave this ruling while deciding a writ appeal filed by a Lecturer (History) who had been declared surplus and transferred to another school after counselling.
The appellant had requested the Court to cancel the transfer and allow him to return to his earlier school, but the Bench rejected the appeal, saying,
“the appellant has no legal right to remain at his previous place of posting once the transfer order has been implemented.”
Advocate Goutam Khetrapal appeared on behalf of the appellant, while Additional Advocate General Yashwant Singh Thakur represented the State.
According to the case details, the appellant was working as a Lecturer (History) at a Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School. When he was declared surplus, he took part in a counselling process and was transferred to another district.
He joined the new post but later filed a writ petition, claiming that he had to join under compulsion.
His main argument was that a vacancy for a History Lecturer had opened up at his previous school after the in-charge Principal was promoted, and therefore, he should have been allowed to return there.
The Single Judge of the High Court had earlier dismissed his petition. The appellant then filed a writ appeal challenging that decision, alleging that his transfer violated rationalisation guidelines and that the newly vacant post should have been allotted to him.
The State government opposed the appeal, stating that the transfer was made strictly according to rationalisation counselling.
The State further argued that the appellant had voluntarily joined the new posting, and once the transfer order was implemented, it could not be reversed. They contended that
“after joining, the transfer order had already been given full effect and could not be undone.”
The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge’s findings and observed that once a transfer has been implemented, courts normally do not interfere.
The Bench highlighted that the appellant had already joined his new post and continued to work there for nearly a month before filing the writ petition.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, the Court underlined that
“an employee cannot refuse to comply with a transfer order, join later, and then seek its cancellation.”
The Bench also cited its earlier judgment in Tarun Kanungo v. State of Chhattisgarh, where it was held that
“once a transfer order has been executed, it ceases to have operative effect, and the remedy lies in issuance of fresh or appropriate orders, not in challenging an already executed transfer.”
The Court said that once an employee accepts the transfer and joins at the new station, the order becomes complete in all respects, and any later vacancy at the earlier workplace cannot be used as a reason to reverse the transfer.
Responding to the argument that a vacancy had later opened up in the appellant’s old school, the Court clarified that such a situation
“does not revive any right after transfer has been implemented.”
The Bench also noted that the entire counselling process for surplus teachers was duly conducted and that the appellant had taken part in it voluntarily. Therefore, he could not later complain about the result of that process.
The Division Bench pointed out that similar cases had been dismissed in the past, including in Smt. Pooja Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the Court reaffirmed that once an employee has joined a transferred post, no legal right remains to claim the earlier posting.
The judgment once again reinforced the settled legal position that courts will not intervene in transfer matters once the employee has joined the new location.
In conclusion, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the appellant had no legal right to return to his former school after joining the new one. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Court made it clear that transfers made through a proper process and duly accepted by the employee cannot later be undone on the ground that a vacancy has appeared at the old posting.
Case Title:
Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
2025:CGHC:50788-DB
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sheena Bora Murder Case
