1 - Ajay Pandey S/o Raghuveer Prasad Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o 57 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6400 of 2025 1 - Ajay Pandey S/o Raghuveer Prasad Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o 57, Dhamtari, Risaipara, Ward 15, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principal, Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Gov. Hr. Sec. School Dhamtari Block Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 01/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is the Lecturer (Physics) (E-cadre) has been transferred from Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Govt. Higher Secondary VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.29 11:36:29 +0530 2 School, Dhamtari to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera, Block Magarlod under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and
Decision
he prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 Set aside the relieving order dated 09.06.2025 issued by the Principal, Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Government Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari (Annexure P/6), whereby the petitioner has been relieved from his present posting. 10.2 Set aside the transfer order dated 05.06.2025, bearing Letter No. Yuktiyuktkaran/2025/DEO/4889, issued by the District Education Officer, Dhamtari, treating the petitioner as surplus and transferring him to Government Higher Secondary School, Mohera, Block Magarlod (Annexure P/5). 10.3 That decide the representation dated 06.06.2025 petitioner filed before the respondent authorities. 10.4 That Direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at her original place of posting under Respondent No. 2, with all consequential benefits, Including protection of seniority, service continuity, and salary, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Lecturer (Physics) (E-cadre) and was appointed by Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari on 12.01.2018. He was posted at Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari and joined on 18.01.2018. The services of the petitioner have been merged with the Education department, vide order dated 31.10.2020 and his services comes under the Education department. On 3 02.06.2025, a list of surplus Lecturers was published and the petitioner is also declared surplus in the school and he was called for counseling, which was to be held on 04.06.2025. The petitioner raised his objection and made his representation. Subsequently, his transfer order dated 05.06.2025 has been issued and he has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and pursuant to the order dated 05.06.2025, he has been relieved on 09.06.2025. He would also submit that at Dr. Shobha Ram Dewangan Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari, the strength of students is 370 and two posts of Lecturer (Physics) are sanctioned. The petitioner is taking 04 subject periods, practical session, open school examination related work and RTE work and considering his services, the Principal of the school, wrote a letter on 12.06.2025 to the respondent No.4 for canceling the transfer order of the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no post of Lecturer (Physics) is sanctioned at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera, only Arts and Commerce faculty are running there. It is also submitted by him that by the transfer of the petitioner, the students of Dhamtari school would be suffered and there is no student at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera in Physics subject. The petitioner moved his representation on 06.06.2025, but till date, the same has not been considered, therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is against the Rationalization Instructions and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 4 instructions, would submit that the rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer is under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. At Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari, two sanctioned posts for Lecturer (Physics) are there, and the petitioner has been declared as surplus. The petitioner could not demonstrate from any document that there is vacant sanctioned post of Lecturer (Physics) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera. Discharging his duties with respect to other programs in the school does not make him entitled to be remained there in the Dhamtari school, because the duty may assign to any other Teacher/Lecturer. The authorities have considered the petitioner as surplus lecturer based on number of students in the school and number of sanctioned posts of lecturer in the school, therefore, there is no ground in the petition to quash the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Physics) was posted at Dr. Shobharam Dewangan Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari and has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohera. His claim is that there are 370 students in the school and he is engaged in important projects in the school and other works, therefore, he may not be transferred. His claim is also that the place where he has been transferred, is not having any sanctioned post of Lecturer (Physics) and no students are there. The said school runs with only Arts and 5 Commerce faculty. It is for the authorities concerned to consider the Rationalization Instructions as per the present setup of the school and number of students there. With respect to assignment of other project work is also does not give any right to the petitioner to be remained there and it may be assigned to any other Teacher/Lecturer also subject to its requirement. The rationalization is a process to equalize and rationalize the schools, where there is no teacher or less teachers. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been transferred at the place, where no sanctioned post of Lecturer is available. At the cost of repetition, it is again said that, it is for the authorities concerned to consider the rationalization of the Teachers/Lecturers under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 by the data available with them. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or mala fide on the part of the authorities concerned, which makes him entitled for the reliefs claimed. The ground raised by the petitioner that he has been transferred on erroneous ground, would not be sufficient to quash the transfer order dated 05.06.2025. 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 6 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