.jpg)
Bilaspur: khbari gullak
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has ruled in favor of Binod Kumar Ekka Registrar, by setting aside a controversial attachment order that posted him outside a university setup. Delivered on February 9, 2026, by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12146 of 2025, the judgment emphasizes strict adherence to statutory university service rules, declaring the state government's action illegal.
Case Background
Binod Kumar Ekka serves as Registrar, currently attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education in Bilaspur. Promoted to the post on December 31, 2016, and initially posted at Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja, Ekka challenged the impugned attachment order dated March 15, 2024 (Annexure P/1). Issued by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, the order effectively transferred him to the Directorate of Higher Education, New Raipur, pending an alleged inquiry into financial irregularities. Ekka argued this violated the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, and the State Universities Services Rules, 1983, as Registrars are university officers, not state government employees.
The petition sought three main reliefs: quash the order as unlawful; direct issuance of a posting order as Registrar in a university under the 1973 Act; and any other appropriate relief with costs.
Petitioner's Arguments
Represented by Advocate Neeraj Choubey, Ekka contended that his role is a statutory post under universities established by the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973. He relied on a June 19, 2023, letter (Annexure P/6) clarifying that self-financed or grant-in-aid university employees fall outside state government control. Ekka further submitted RTI documents dated January 7, 2026, showing no departmental inquiry was initiated or pending, undermining the respondents' justification for the attachment.
Respondents' Defense
Deputy Government Advocate Anuja Sharma countered that the state government, as the appointing authority for Registrar posts under the 1983 Rules, held competence to issue postings. She clarified the attachment stemmed from a pending inquiry into financial misconduct during Ekka's tenure at Surguja University, not a mere administrative transfer.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Sahu framed the core issue: Can a university Registrar, a creation of the 1973 Act, be posted to a non-university office like the Directorate?
Key statutory provisions highlighted:
Section 11 Lists Registrar among university officers.
Section 15-C(5) Allows absorption into State University Service but limits transfers between universities only, preserving pre-absorption service conditions.
Rule 22, 1983 Rules Explicitly states, The Kuladhipati may transfer any member of service from one University to another," with no provision for non-university postings.
The court ruled the attachment violated these mandatory provisions, as neither the Act nor Rules empower transfers to external establishments.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The judgment drew on binding Supreme Court rulings to affirm judicial restraint in transfer matters absent mala fides or statutory violations:
Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991): Courts avoid interfering with public interest transfers unless violating mandatory rules.
State of UP v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) Transfers are inherent in service unless mala fide, violative of statutes, or by incompetent authority.
Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) Interference only for mala fides or statutory breaches.
Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (2020): Transfers are service exigencies; no vested rights from guidelines unless statutorily contravened.
Applying these, the court found the order "de hors the rules" and unsustainable.
Final Verdict
The writ petition succeeded. The March 15, 2024, order was quashed and set aside, with no costs imposed.
