Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.07.29 11:26:54 +0530 2025:CGHC:36537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6892 of 2025 Somprakash Chandravanshi S/o Tikendra Chandravashi Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Government High School, Sankara Block Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director, Division Education, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Collector Complex, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Deo Office, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, (Revenue) President Of Block Level Committee Tehsil Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Devashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Shri Suyash Dhar Badgayya, Dy GA 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 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from the Govt. High School, Sankra, Block Chhura, to Govt. High Wps 6892 of 2025 2 School Bhootbeda, Block Mainpur, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 and prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. Issue an approporiate writ, order, or direciton quashing the transfer order dated 03.06.2025 being arbitrary, irrational and mala fide (Annexure P2). b. Alternatively, direct the Respondents to consider the representation made by the Petitioner; c. Grant interim relief by staying the operation of the transfer/displacement of the petitioner pending final disposal of this writ petition. d. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB) (Maths), is posted at the Govt. High School Sankra, Block- chhura. He has been declared surplus teacher, and has been transferred to Govt. High School Bhootbeda, Mainpur. He would further submit that, while declaring the petitioner surplus, the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have not been followed, and no proper opportunity to opt out of the school at the time of counselling was provided to the petitioner. Present petitioner was the Senior Lecturer there, but vide promotion order dated 30.04.2025, one Smt. Praveen Kamat has been promoted and posted as Govt. High School Sankara as Headmistress, who is also a Lecturer (Maths), and thereby the petitioner has been declared as surplus. The authorities should have considered the promotion of the other Lecturer, which is subjudice in the WPS No. 9778 of 2019 and WPPIL No. 91 of 2019, and therefore, the posting of the other Wps 6892 of 2025 3 Lecturer (Maths) cannot be considered as a regular posting, yet the petitioner has been declared as surplus against her. 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, opposes and submits that, under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. Smt. Praveen Kamat, who is also a Lecturer, has been promoted and posted at Govt. High School Sankra, vide order dated 30.04.2025, and the petitioner has been declared surplus. 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 the petitioner is illegally declared surplus because Smt. Praveen Kamat has been posted there on 30.04.2025 by promotion, and the petitioner has been declared surplus. Although the promotion of Smt. Praveen Kamat was subject to the final outcome of WPS No. 9778/2019 and WPPIL No. 91/2019, but it does not mean that her posting cannot be considered. The petitioner could not demonstrate who was the senior in the school, when Smt. Praveen Kamat had joined the school, and what is the strength of students and sanctioned post of Govt. High School, Sankra. From perusal of the entire material produced by the petitioner
Decision
along with the writ petition, this court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner under the Wps 6892 of 2025 4 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, he 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 considered by the Hon’ble Apex 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 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. 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 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. Wps 6892 of 2025 5 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 padma