1 - Smt. Neha Singh W/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 35 Years Occupation Assistant v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7391 of 2025 1 - Smt. Neha Singh W/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 35 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Government Primary School Kudrikhar Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor C-Block Indiravati Bhavan Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 8 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:29:34 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 21/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and claimed the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned order dated 31/05/2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner 80 kms away from the present place of posting i.e. from Government Primary School Gangdehi Block Division Katghora to Primary School Sitapara Block Division Pali. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at her attached place of posting i.e. Government Primary School Fertilizer as per the government notification dated 07.02.2022 in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) was posted at Primary School, Gangdei, Block Katghora, has been transferred to Primary School, Sautapara, Block Pali, vide transfer order dated 31.05.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 3 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 31.05.2025, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 4415 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 pursuance thereof, the petitioner has made her representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee on 16.06.2025 and appeared on 19.06.2025 before the Rationalization Committee and then the District Level Rationalization Committee has passed an order on 26.06.2025 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 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 Teachers, but after passing of the order dated 26.06.2025 by the District Level Rationalization Committee, 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 attached at Primary School, Gangdei on 11.07.2017 and she is working there since then. There is a notification of the State Government dated 07.02.2022 that the Teachers who were attached in 4 teacherless/single teacher schools, they may not be relieved from that place. Her original place of posting is at Govt. Primary School, Fertilizer, where 101 students are there. 03 posts of Teacher are sanctioned there at Fertilizer school, but the said school has not been disclosed at the time of counseling, despite having 03 vacant posts there, and therefore, she was compelled to opt the Primary School, Sautapara. He would further submit that husband of the petitioner is an employee at Balco and she is having a minor child and old aged in- laws and has to take care of them. He would further submit that presently the petitioner came to know that the State Government is going to appoint the teachers on honorarium on the vacant post, in which the Primary School, Fertilizer is also there, which supported the allegation of the petitioner that the Fertilizer school has not been shown at the time of counseling, despite having vacant posts. It is also submitted by him that vide circular dated 08.07.2025, issued by the respondent No.5, they are going to appoint honorarium teacher for the session of 2025-26 or till the appointment of regular teacher. The petitioner being the regular teacher is claiming to be posted there, yet she has been transferred and her representation has also been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee, therefore, the impugned transfer order as well as order dated 26.06.2025 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 Assistant Teacher (LB), at Primary School, Gangdei and she was attached to 5 Primary School, Fertilizer vide order dated 11.07.2017. Vide circular dated 07.02.2022, the Teachers, who have been attached in teacherless/single teacher schools, they may not be relieved, but their transfer proposal may be sent to the Directorate, Public Instructions. Presently, the attachment of the petitioner has been revoked and thereafter considering her original place of posting, she is declared surplus and has been transferred. All the available schools as provided under clause 10.4 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 has been displayed at the time of counseling and the Rationalization Instructions are strictly followed by the authorities. The petitioner is claiming the quashment of her transfer order on the ground which is not available to her under the relevant rules and circulars. He would further submit that, against the order dated 26.06.2025, she is having alternate remedy of filing the representation before the Divisional Level Committee as constituted by the notification dated 07.07.2025, but the petitioner did not want to pursue her remedy there, therefore, there the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 8. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Teacher in the school and she has not been provided proper opportunity to opt the schools at the time of counseling and all the vacant posts in the schools have not been displayed. Clause 10.4 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that the equal number of schools to the surplus 6 Teachers should be displayed, which are either teacherless or single teacher schools. All the single teacher schools cannot be displayed, because the number of single teacher schools may be in excess than the surplus Teachers. The object of the clause 10.4 of the Rationalization Instructions is that, firstly the teacherless and then the single teacher school would be filled up by the surplus Teachers. It further transpires from the documents annexed with the petition that in the Korba district, the number of surplus Teachers are less than the number of single teacher school, and therefore, the single teacher school having vacant post were displayed. From the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/8), it transpires that the petitioner herself has opted for Primary School, Sautapara at the time of counseling on 31.05.2025. Further, after the completion of the Rationalization process, there are still vacant posts in various schools and the teaching of the students may affect for want of teachers, therefore, the District Education Officer is going to appoint honorarium teachers in the school on the current session, so that the teaching may not be affected. It is for the authorities concerned to place the petitioner at the relevant place of her posting under the administrative exigency and she cannot claim to be remained there at a particular place of her posting. Against the order dated 26.06.2025, she does not willing to pursue her remedy before the Divisional Level Committee constituted on 07.07.2025. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 7 9. 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]. 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. 10.
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