Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7872 of 2025 1 - Smt. Durga Jaiswal W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years R/o B-1/153, Rama World, Tifra, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 21/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 27-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the representation of the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:28:55 +0530 2 petitioner against her transfer order dated 04-06-2025 under the Rationalization instructions has been rejected by the authorities. 2. The State Government, vide its notification No. GENCOR-35010/1738/ 2025-GAD-5, dated 07-07-2025, constituted a District Level Committee, headed by Divisional Commissioner of the concerned Division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representations of the teachers, but after passing of the order dated 27-06-2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedies before the said committee and argued the case on merits, therefore, the order has been passed on merits of the case. 3. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had challenged her transfer order dated 04-06-2025 in W.P.S. No. 5040/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of on 18-06-2025, directing the petitioner to move her fresh representation, and then the authorities shall decide the same within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the authorities have passed the order on 27-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) on the representation of the petitioner and the same is rejected, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher, was posted at Primary School, Shanti Nagar, Uslapur (Takhatpur) has been transferred to Primary School, Aamgaon (Masturi), by the transfer order dated 04-06-2025 under the Rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher (Science) and she was posted at Bilaspur District 3 vide order dated 25-05-2016, in which she has been considered as a Science Teacher. She was posted at Uslapur vide order dated 21-09-2017. Presently, at the time of counseling, she has not been considered as Teacher (Science) but has been considered as Assistant Teacher and has been posted at Primary School, Aamgaon. Therefore, she may be posted at any other place, considering that she is a Teacher (Science). The authorities have not considered her representation in true perspective, and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that vide order dated 27-02-2009, the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and was posted at High School, Pendrawan. She was not appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science) or Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Science). On the ground of husband and wife, vide order dated 25-05-2016, she was posted at Bilaspur District as her husband was posted at Bilaspur District. Thereafter, vide order dated 21-08-2017, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) at Primary School, Shanti Nagar (Uslapur). From the data available, at Shanti Nagar school, there were 85 students and 5 teachers were posted, including the Headmaster. As per clause 7-A(3) of the Rationalization instructions, only 2 teachers are required, including the headmaster and therefore, the petitioner, being junior, has been declared surplus and has been transferred. The petitioner is neither appointed as Teacher (Laboratory Science) nor posted there in the said post. He would further submit that the State Government has 4 constituted a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and the petitioner is having alternative remedy and if, she does not willing
Decision
to avail alternative remedy, the writ petition cannot be entertained. She has been rightly declared surplus, and her representation is dismissed by the authorities, which is justified, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is a Teacher (Laboratory Science), but she has been considered as an Assistant Teacher and has been posted at a Primary School from High School. From perusal of her appointment order as well as the other documents, it transpires that she was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, and subsequently she merged with the Education department and was posted as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). The substantive post of the petitioner is Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). She was posted at Middle School, Pendrawan, on the policy of posting husband and wife at the same place as practically as possible. She cannot claim her posting as a matter of right. As per clause 7-A(3) of the Rationalization instruction, for 85 students, only 02 teachers are required, including the headmaster. Thus, the petitioner, being junior, was declared surplus and has been transferred from there to Primary School, Aamgaon (Masturi). 8. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere 5 guidelines. It may not supplant 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 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. [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. 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. 6 9. 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