Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:27302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5576 of 2025 1 - Smt. Baijanti Rathore W/o Shri Netabhai Rathore Aged About 42 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Jagdalla, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Joint Director Joint Director Office, Bilaspur, Division, Ghodadana School, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer Janjgir-Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Education Officer Janjgir-Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 24/06/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher, has been posted from Govt. Primary School, VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 11:34:57 +0530 2 / 5 Naveen Kurda to Govt. Primary School, Nawapara Bhaiso under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following
Decision
reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of excess teacher. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favor 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 an Assistant Teacher and presently posted at Govt. Primary School, Naveen Kurda. In the school, the strength of the students was 94, but in the month of March, 2025, the strength of the students in the school was shown only 89 as per the data sent by the Headmaster for mid- day meals and taking the said data of the students, the petitioner has been declared surplus in the school. There are material discrepancies in rationalization of the Teachers and it is in utter violation of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The junior teachers 3 / 5 have been given priority ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and after declaring her surplus, she has been posted at Govt. Primary School, Nawapara Bhaiso. She has already made her representation on 04.06.2025 to the respondent No.3, but her representation has not been considered, therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that as per the data available with the authorities, the requirement of teachers in the school have been considered. The data sent in the month of March, 2025 shows the strength of the students in the school as 89 and as per clause 7.3 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 only 03 teachers are required including the headmaster, and therefore, the petitioner was declared surplus at Govt. Primary School, Naveen Kurda and has been posted to Govt. Primary School, Nawapara Bhaiso, in which there is no violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner has claimed that in the school, total 94 students are there, however, in the month of March, 2025 the data sent by the headmaster of the school showing the strength of the students in the school as 89, which is only for the purposes of mid-day meals. The petitioner could not be able to demonstrate by any document that the total strength of the students in the school is 94 and as per clause 7.3 4 / 5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, four teachers were required. The authorities have considered the requirement of teachers in the school as per the data available with them and for 89 students, only 03 teachers including the headmaster were required, and thus, declaring the petitioner surplus cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide. The petitioner could not demonstrate also that while considering the rationalization, her seniority has been ignored. The petitioner has already made her representation before the respondent No.3 and it is for the authorities concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner as per the Rationalization Instructions. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. 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 5 / 5 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