Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5210 of 2025 1 - Kumaresh Gautam S/o Late Shri D.N. Gautam Aged About 47 Years Occupation Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Middle School Kurud Block Division Korba District -Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Of Public Instrucation Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor C- Block Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.09 19:13:53 +0530 Order on Board 2 24/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 03.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Teacher (Arts) has been transferred from Middle School, Kurudih, Block Korba to Middle School, Arsiya, Block Podi-Uproda under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following
Decision
reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and kindly direct the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner and kindly keep him posted at his present place of posting i.e. Middle School Kurudih Block Korba District Korba (C.G.). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at his present place of posting and strict action may be taken against the respondent authorities for wrongly declaring the petitioner as surplus teacher. 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 Middle School, Kurudih, Block Korba. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the 3 petitioner was declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published. At the time of considering the Rationalization Instructions clause 7(5) has not been considered and he has been considered as Teacher (Arts), whereas he is having Hindi subject in his graduation and he should be considered as Teacher (Hindi). He would further submit that he has joined in Kurudih school on 13.10.2022 by transfer and teaching in Hindi subject. There are 05 teachers in the school and total students are 63. One Rajesh Kanwar, Headmaster is from Arts subject, Gopeshwar Sahu, Teacher (Maths), Mahesh Ram Kurre (Arts/Sanskrit), Arun Suryavanshi (Arts/ Economics) and the petitioner Kumaresh Goutam (Arts/Hindi). As per the clause 7(5) of the Rationalization Instructions the consideration as per the roster should be in the sequence of English, Maths, Arts, Science and Hindi. After the Headmaster in Arts subject and Teacher in Maths, no one is there in English and Science, and therefore, the petitioner should be treated as Hindi Teacher and should not be treated as surplus teacher. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Middle School, Kurudih. The said school is having 63 students and as per the Rationalization Instructions, Rajesh Kumar Kanwar, who is the Headmaster and Teacher (Arts), Gopeshwar Prasad Sahu, Teacher (Maths), Arun Kumar Suryavanshi, Teacher (Arts) and Mahesh Ram Kurre, Teacher (Arts) cannot be considered as surplus. On 03.06.2025, open counseling was conducted in which teacherless/single teacher/two 4 teachers’ schools have been displayed and the petitioner has opted for Middle School, Arsiya. The petitioner is claiming that he is the Teacher (Hindi) on the basis that he is having Hindi Literature as one of the subjects in his graduation. Even if, the subject of the petitioner is to be taken as Hindi, the other teacher, Rajesh Kumar Kanwar is also having Hindi subject in his graduation and he is the headmaster of the school, therefore, in all consideration, the petitioner, who is joined in the school on 13.10.2022, is surplus teacher in the school and has been transferred and relieved for his transferred place of posting on 05.06.2025. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (Arts) is claiming to be the Teacher (Hindi) on the ground that Hindi Literature is one of the subjects in his graduation. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the Teacher, who is having any particular subject in their graduation, they should be treated as Teacher for the same subject. The petitioner has rightly been considered as Teacher (Arts) and declared as surplus being the junior most in the school. From the instructions submitted by the State, it is also mentioned that the Headmaster of the school Rajesh Kumar Kanwar is also having Hindi subject in his graduation and since he is the Headmaster, he cannot be declared as surplus, and therefore, considering the junior most Teacher (Arts), the petitioner has been declared as surplus. Further, as per the instructions submitted by the State Government, the petitioner himself has opted for Middle School, 5 Arsiya and has been relieved on 05.06.2025, no case for interference is made out by him in the present writ petition. 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. 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. 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. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge