Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6794 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Basant Chandrakar S/o Purnaram Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Assistant Teacher, Posted At Government Primary School Daldali Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C- Block, Indirawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Secretary Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:56:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 07/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and transfer order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Daldaliroad, Mahasamund to Govt. Primary School, Manki, Block Bagbahra under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 02.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4319 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Rationalization Committee, who shall take a decision in accordance with law, in objective manner. In compliance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the District Rationalization Committee on 20.06.2025, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the District Rationalization Committee has not considered the claim of the petitioner in its true perspective. The concerned school is having 94 students, but in UDISE portal, it shows only 88 students and thereby shows the requirement of less teachers and the petitioner has been declared surplus. If all the 94 students are to be shown in UDISE portal, the requirement of 04 teachers including the headmaster was 3 there the petitioner would not have been declared as surplus. The actual number of students are to be considered and not the students shown in UDISE portal. He would further submit that there is violation of clause 7-A(3) of the Rationalization Instructions, dated 02.08.2024 and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Daldaliroad, Mahasamund and under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, he was declared surplus there and has been transferred to Primary School, Manki, Block Bagbahra. The representation of the petitioner has been considered in view of clause 7-A(3) of the Rationalization Instructions and on 02.06.2025, the petitioner had appeared in counseling and he himself opted for Primary School, Manki and submitted his declaration and on his consent, he has been transferred to Primary School, Manki. In Primary School, Daldaliroad, there were 05 teachers working, out of which two were excess including the petitioner and the Rationalization of the teachers have been done on the basis of data available on UDISE portal, therefore, there is no violation of any conditions of the Rationalization Instructions and the District Rationalization Committee has rightly considered and passed the order dated 20.06.2025. There
Decision
is no irregularity or illegality in the same and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4 6. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher is claiming that he should not be treated as surplus Teacher in the school and the total strength of the school has not been considered by the District Rationalization Committee while deciding the representation of the petitioner. It transpires from the order dated 20.06.2025 that, the data available in UDISE portal has been made basis to rationalize the teachers in the school. In the Daldaliroad school, total 88 students are being shown in UDISE portal, where 05 teachers were working and therefore as per clause 7-A(3) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, two teachers including the petitioner have been declared as surplus and they have been transferred. Further, it transpires from the order dated 20.06.2025 that the petitioner himself has opted for Primary School, Manki at the time of counseling on 02.06.2025 and on his own choice, he has been transferred there at Primary School, Manki. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as also from the material annexed with the writ petition, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 or the transfer order dated 02.06.2025. 7. 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. 5 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. 8. 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