High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.12 18:23:20 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on 27.06.2025 Judgment delivered on 12.09.2025 WPS No. 5953 of 2025 NAFR Smt. Mamta Sonwani W/o Dr. Suman Kumar Sonwani Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Teacher LB Government Middle School Tarra, Block Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Disrict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Shri KS Saini, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal CAV Order 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 05-06-2025, whereby she has been transferred from the Government Middle School, Tarra (Dharsiwa), to Government Middle School, Tulsi Manpur (Tilda), under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in this writ petition: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 Wps 5953 of 2025 2 (Annexure P1) issued by respondent District Education Officer, Raipur. 10.2 to kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (Science) and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Tarra (Dharsiwa). She has been declared surplus under the rationalization scheme of teachers, and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Tulsi Manpur (Tilda). He would further submit that on 03-02-2023, petitioner was posted at the Govt. Middle School, Akhrapara, Kurud, which was challenged by her in WPS- 6145/2023, before this Court. In that writ petition, an interim order of stay was granted on 05-09-2023. The petitioner was pressurized by the authorities to withdraw her writ petition, and when she refused to do the same, she is punished by the order of her posting. The appointing authority of the Teacher is the Joint Director, School Education, whereas, the impugned posting order is issued by the District Education Officer, who is not competent. Without giving proper opportunity of hearing, and without issuing the list of surplus teachers, the posting order of the petitioner is issued. There is complete violation of rationalization instructions, and the order dated 05-06-2025 is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Government Wps 5953 of 2025 3 Middle School, Tarra (Dharsiwa). She has been declared surplus there, as per the strength of the students and available teachers there, and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Tulsi Manpur (Tilda). The earlier order was in the nature of assignment of work at the Government Middle School, Akhrapara, Kurud, which was stayed by order dated 05-09-2023, but the present is a posting order under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. There is no violation of the order dated 05-09-2023 passed in WPS No. 6145/2023. He would also submit that the petitioner has not filed the copy of rationalization instructions to demonstrate the violation of any condition and has not made any representation to the authorities, if she feels the violation of rationalization instructions or she has any grievance against her posting order. He would further submit that under the rationalization instructions, the State Government made the committee for rationalization of the teachers, and the District Education Officer has been made the Head of the District Level Committee, which passed the order dated 05-06-2025, which is in accordance with the provisions of rationalization instructions. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same 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 the Teacher (Science), has been transferred to the Government Middle School, Tulsi Manpur (Tilda), vide order dated 05-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. Though an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 05-09-2023, in WPS No. 6145/2023, the present order is under the rationalization instructions. By the order dated 05-09-2023, the effect and operation of the order dated 03-08-2023 was stayed, which does Wps 5953 of 2025 4 not mean that she cannot be declared surplus and cannot be posted somewhere else. It is not that the stay of the effect and operation of any order would prevent the state from passing a fresh order for the posting of the employees. Further, the state government constituted the District Level Committee for rationalization of teachers, headed by the District Collector, and the District Education Officer is the Member Secretary of the said Committee. Thus, the order dated 05-06-2025 is under the competence of Respondent No. 5/District Education Officer. The Clause 1(C)(iv) of the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 provides that: iv ftyk Lrjh; lfefr& lfefr ds fuEukuqlkj inkf/kdkjh gksxssa& A. ftyk dysDVj &v/;{k B. eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r &lnL; C. ftyk eq[;ky; ds vk;qDr] uxj fuxe @eq[; uxj ikfydk] vf/kdkjh &lnL; D. ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh & lnL; lfpo F. ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh@ ftyk efgyk cky fodkl vf/kdkjh &lnL; 6. In the present case, the service condition of the petitioner is not affected, and it is only the order of posting under the rationalization. The District Education Officer issued the order after due approval of the District Level Rationalization Committee. The petitioner could not demonstrate violation of any condition of rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. There is no pleading or document that she raised her grievance before the authorities against the order impugned, or that she was not provided proper opportunity of hearing before the order of her posting. Wps 5953 of 2025 5 7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. 8. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and
Decision
circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma