Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5089 of 2025 1 - Dulesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Netram Bhardwaj Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Teacher (Arts), Government Middle School Saraipali, Block Division Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.02 15:54:20 +0530 2 19/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 03.06.2025 and relieving order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) under the Rationalization Instructions dated
Decision
02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 03/06/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned relieving order dated 05.06.2025 (ΑΝNEXURE P/2) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner 84 kms away from the present place of posting from Government middle School Saraipali Block Division Korba to a remote forest area middle School Lampahad Block Division Korba. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at the nearest Vacant School i.e. Government middle School Jhagarha in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Teacher (Arts), at Govt. Middle School, Saraipali, Block Korba, District Korba. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Lampahad, Block Korba 3 vide order dated 03.06.2025. He would further submit that the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have not been followed, which is contrary to clause 6, 7 and 10 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The nearby single teacher’s school have not been displayed at the time of counseling and the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 has been passed. The consideration of the teachers in the schools in respective subjects have not been considered properly and their seniority also have not been taken care. The petitioner has made his representation on 05.06.2025 against the arbitrary action and conduct of the authorities and irregularity in rationalization process and also submitted his difficulties due to his ailment, but the same has not been considered and has been relieved ex-parte on 05.06.2025, hence he filed the writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, on instructions, would submit that as per clause 10(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the schools in the equal number of the surplus teachers have been displayed, which are either single teacher’s school or teacherless schools. In the Korba district, there were 75 surplus teachers in Arts subject, and therefore, 75 vacant posts were displayed, out of which 04 schools were teacherless, 18 schools were single teacher, 38 schools were two teachers and 15 schools were having excess teachers. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioner that Govt. Middle School, Jhagarha was not displayed at the time of counseling, but the number of students at 4 Govt. Middle School, Jhagarha was 68 and 03 teachers were posted, and therefore, the Jhagarha school was not displayed. He would further submit that as per clause 10(4) of the Rationalization Instructions, firstly the teacherless schools are to be displayed, then single teacher’s school and thereafter, the schools having excess number of students are to be displayed. Since, there is no excess student in Jhagarha school, the same has not been displayed. The authorities concerned have followed the Rationalization Instructions in accordance with law and there is no irregularity in declaring the petitioner as surplus teacher at Govt. Middle School, Saraipali and transferring him to Govt. Middle School, Lampahad. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (Arts) in Govt. Middle School, Saraipali has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Lampahad vide order dated 03.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The claim of the petitioner that the Govt. Middle School, Jhagarha has not been displayed in the list of single teacher or teacherless school, for which the explanation given by the State that the Govt. Middle School, Jhagarha is having strength of 68 students and 03 teachers were posted, and therefore, Jhagarha school has not been displayed in the list. From the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.06.2025, it reveals that the petitioner himself has opt the Govt. Middle School, Lampahad at the time of counseling. The petitioner could not make out any case, which can be considered 5 to be gross violation of Rationalization Instructions or any mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers of the authorities. 6. 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. Rajeev 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. 7. 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. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved