Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.07.29 11:27:20 +0530 2025:CGHC:36538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6209 of 2025 Archana Deep Ekka D/o Shri Tlasiyus Ekka Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer (L.B.), Govt. Primary Higher Middle School, Block Batauli, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Education Directorate, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Public Education Directorate, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block Batuali, District Sarguja 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 Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from the Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Batauli, Distt. Surguja to Govt. Higher Secondary School Gadaghat, Distt. Khairagarh- Wps 6209 of 2025 2 Chhuikhadan-Gandai, under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Director, Public Education Directorate, Naya Raipur, CG (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant anyother relief whch this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of thepetitioner as per the facts and circumstnce of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a complete violation of Clause 6.6 of Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner had duly participated in the counselling at the district level, yet she has been transferred to another Division. The process of counselling adopted by the authorities is arbitrary and mala fide, and it was conducted hastily. Her name was not there in the Divisional Level list of Lecturers for counselling. The petitioner is a Lecturer (LB) (Chemistry) and her name has not been shown in the list of surplus teachers of the Higher Secondary School, yet she has been declared surplus. Therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that, in the district level list of surplus Lecturers, the name of the petitioner appears at serial number 15. In the District, only 04 posts of Lecturer (Chemistry) were available and therefore, she was not called for counselling at the District Level. She was joined in the Government Higher Secondary Wps 6209 of 2025 3 School, Batauli, on 30.07.2010, whereas the other 2 Lecturers in the school, Chandrakanti Bhagat, had joined on 01.05.2005, and Ashok Kumar Toppo had joined on 14.01.2004. Thus, the petitioner, being the junior most, has been declared surplus. In the district level counselling, only 4 vacant posts for Lecturer (Chemistry) were available, and the petitioner did not find a place in the seniority list for the requisite post, and therefore she was not called in district level counselling and her name was sent for Divisional level counselling. In the Divisional level also, she could not be posted for want of a sufficient vacant post in the Divisional level and therefore her name was sent for state level counselling and in the list of surplus Lecturers at State level, her name is found in place at serial number 27. Therefore, she has been posted at the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gadaghat, Distt. Khairagadh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai. The petitioner could not demonstrate by producing sufficient documents in support of his claim, and violation of the Rationalization Instructions. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process of Rationalization of the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that her name does not find place in the Divisional level list, which is violative of Clause 6.6 of the Rationalization Instructions. On instructions, the State counsel has submitted a copy of the list of the Lecturers who have been declared surplus and due to non-availability of vacant posts at the Divisional level, they have been recommended for state- level counselling. In the list of surplus Lectures of Divisional level, her name is at serial number 7, thus, the ground taken by the petitioner that her name is not Wps 6209 of 2025 4 there in the Divisional level list is misconceived, and this court does not find any violation of Clause 6.6 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. From perusal of the entire material produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition also, this court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner under the Rationalization Instruction dated 02.08.2024. This court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer order of the petitioner. Under the Rationalization instruction, she has rightly been considered surplus and transferred. 6. 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, as it has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 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 in 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 does not find any scope of interference in this petition. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and Wps 6209 of 2025 5 regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 7. 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