1 - Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik D/o Daduram Kaushik Aged About 54 Years Posted As v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
2025:CGHC:28316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4770 of 2025 1 - Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik D/o Daduram Kaushik Aged About 54 Years Posted As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Sadar, Block Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction (Dpi) Through Its Director Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) 5 - Collector District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Sunita Kashyap Posted At Govt. Middle School Gaushala Block, Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Ashwani Joshi Posted At Govt. Girls Middle School Janjgir Block Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.26 19:18:30 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 07.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions
Decision
dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to conduct re- counselling thereby consider the name of the petitioner in the counselling over and above to the private respondents whose name were below the petitioner but were given priority in the counselling. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/ reliefs in favor of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts subject at Govt. Middle School, Sadar, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published by the Block Education Officer, in which the name of petitioner is find place at serial No. 33, showing the petitioner as senior to the respondent No.7 Smt. Ashwani Joshi, whose name has been find place at serial No. 48 of the same list (Annexure P/2) and as per the Rationalization Instructions, juniors would be declared as surplus, but in the present case, the petitioner has been declared as surplus Teacher and has been transferred from Govt. Middle School, Sadar to Govt. Middle School, Kukurdi-Kala, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur. He would further submit that the petitioner has made her representation on 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/4), but the same has not been considered till date, and therefore, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Sadar for Arts subject. There are 91 students in the said school and total 06 Teachers were posted including the Headmaster and as per the Rationalization Instructions, only 03 Teachers and 01 Headmaster are required there, and therefore, on the basis of the date of joining of the Teachers in the school, they, including the petitioner, have been declared surplus, as the petitioner had joined in the school on 28.08.2017, whereas the respondent No.7 had joined on 17.09.2009. He would further submit that the opportunity was provided to the petitioner at the time of counseling to opt the place of posting and as per the gradation list, issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur as on 01.04.2024, the name of the petitioner is find place at serial No. 183 and the name of respondent No.6 find place at serial No. 178, who is senior to the petitioner. The name of respondent No.7 is at serial No. 347 in another gradation list of Teacher (LB) cadre. During the counseling, the petitioner refused to opt the school, and therefore, her name has been forwarded to the office of Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur and thereafter, she has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Kukurdi-Kala, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, therefore, there is no violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts subject in Govt. Middle School, Sadar has assailed her transfer order, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, which has been issued in furtherance of the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The dispute involved in this case, being factual in nature, ought not to go into when the Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode of consideration for rationalization. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. . Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/ State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 6. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge