1 - Smt. Bharati Verma W/o Shri Yugesh Kumar Aged About 37 Years Post v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7204 of 2025 1 - Smt. Bharati Verma W/o Shri Yugesh Kumar Aged About 37 Years Post - Lecturer, Government Girls School, Education Complex, Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.), R/o Ashish Nagar, Reshali, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division - Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 6 - The Principal Government Girls School, Education Complex, Ambagarh Chauki, District Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Prerna Bharati Singh Lecturer, Office Of The Principal, Government Hr. Secondary School, Boriya-Thekedari, Maanpur, District Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
16.06.2025, by this Court in WPS No. 4800 of 2025. 4. The State Government vide its notification No. GENCOR-35010/ 1738/2025-GAD-5, dated 07.07.2025, constituted a Divisional Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representation of the Lecturers, but after passing of the order dated 19.06.2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedies before the said Divisional Committee and argued the case on merits, therefore, the orders has been passed on merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity before declaring her surplus and she has been transferred almost about 100 KMs away from the present place of posting. There is violation of clause 7(C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. As per clause 1(D)(2) 5 and (4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the name of surplus Lecturers is required to be sent to Divisional Committee, only if there is no vacant post in District Level. In the case of the petitioner, the post of Lecturer (Maths) was available at District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, she was not short listed for District Level Rationalization. She would further submit that the female lecturers have also not been called as per their seniority, which is violative of clause 10.7.2 of the Rationalization Instructions. There is arbitrariness and highhandedness on the part of the respondent authorities to give posting to their own candidates on their own choice. As per the time table of the schools, there are more than 4 periods of Maths, hence she could not have been declared surplus. The representation of the petitioner has been decided in very casual manner without considering the entire Rationalization Instructions and facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned orders of transfer as well as rejection of her representation are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted as Lecturer (Maths) at Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki, where total 139 students are there. Two Lecturers (Maths) were posted and as per the data available, there was no more than 04 periods of Maths for the classes of 9th to 12th, and therefore, as per clause 7(C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The vacant posts were also shown in the district level list as per clause 10.4 of the Rationalization Instructions and since the name of the 6 petitioner finds place at the bottom, she has been transferred to High School, Sarkheda. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioner has been considered in her presence and proper opportunity of hearing was provided to her. She has an alternative remedy to approach before the Divisional Level Committee, but she is not willing to pursue her remedy there and under the limited jurisdiction of this Court against the transfer of the petitioner, her transfer cannot be interfered, as there is no mala fide or arbitrariness in her transfer. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 8. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Maths) is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Lecturer in the school and she has not been provided proper opportunity to opt the schools at the time of counseling. From the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that there are 139 students at Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki and there were two Lecturers (Maths) were posted. As per the time table, there was less than 04 periods of Maths for the students of 9th to 12th, and thus the petitioner being the junior has been declared surplus and has been transferred. Clause 7(C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions provided that:- “सात :- अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों के ति(cid:14)न्हांकन हेतु ्ቚቅኌ(cid:22)याः- ቅኌ(cid:25)कासखण्ड स्तरीय सቅኌ तित युቅኌ!यु!करण (cid:25)ाले ቅኌ(cid:25)्ቕालयों के अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों तथा अन्य ቅኌ(cid:25)्ቕालयों के अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों के ति(cid:14)न्हांकन हेतु ቅኌनम्नानुसार ्ቚቅኌ(cid:22)या अपनायेगीः- 7 C. हाई/ हायर सेके ण्डरी स्कू ल :- 1. हाई/हायर सेके ण्डरी स्कू ल ें जहां दज. संख्या बहुत क है, और (cid:25)हाँ एक ही ቅኌ(cid:25)षय के दो व्याख्याता काय.रत है (्ቚतित व्याख्याता अध्यापन 04 कालखण्ड से क ), तो उन ें से कቅኌन्त अतितशेष होगा।" 9. It also transpires from the document (Annexure P/12) that the petitioner has not opted for any school at the time of counseling on 03.06.2025, and therefore, she being the last candidate, she was allotted to Govt. High School, Sarkheda. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 10. 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]. 8 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. 11.
Arguments
: Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:26:14 +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 dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/2), order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/3), order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/4 and P/5) and claimed the following reliefs in her writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call upon the records related to the case of the petitioner from the Respondent Authorities for its kind consideration. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions, of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.04 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Respondent No.04 (Annexure P-2). 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) by Respondent No.04. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) by Respondent No.06. 10.6 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) by Respondent No.03. 3 10.7 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P-6) by Respondent No.03. 10.8 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner grant her posting at Govt. High School Boriya-Thekedari, Distt. Mohala Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). 10.9 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate. 10.10 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Maths) was posted at Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki, has been transferred to High School, Sarkheda, Block Manpur vide transfer order dated 03.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 03.06.2025, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 4800 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Rationalization Committee, who shall take a decision in accordance with law, in objective manner. Initially, the petitioner has made her representation on 03.06.2025 and 07.06.2025 (Annexure P/14). After passing of the order by this Court on 16.06.2025, passed in WPS No. 4800 of 2025, though the petitioner has not moved her fresh representation before the transfer committee within the period of 05 days from the date of order, the respondent No.4 has decided the 4 representation of the petitioner, which was initially made by her. From perusal of the order dated 19.06.2025, it transpires that the order dated 19.06.2025 is passed in presence of the petitioner and after providing her the opportunity of hearing. It also transpires that on 20.06.2025, the petitioner made her representation addressing the District Level Rationalization Committee and there is an acknowledgment of the office of Collector and District Education Officer, Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki and another representation dated 26.06.2025, in which acknowledgment of District Education Officer, Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, but in none of the representations, there is disclosure of passing of the order dated
Decision
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