Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8394 of 2025 1 - Niranjan Prashad Verma S/o Late Shri Ramrath Mahto Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Rakesh Kirana Store, Phundrudihari, Ambikapur District- Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instrucation Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Collector Surguja District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Block Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 24/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 18:17:51 +0530 2 a Teacher (LB) has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Lamdarha, Block Bagicha under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024
Decision
and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: a) Stay the operation and effect of the impugned transfer/posting order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) during the pendency of the present writ petition; b) Direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting, i.e., Government Middle School, Jagdishpur, District Surguja, until final disposal of the petition; c) Pass any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 22.07.1998. His services have been absorbed in the School Education Department in the year 2018 and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Jagdishpur, Block Ambikapur. By order dated 06.06.2025, he has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Lamdarha. He would also submit that in the initial list of surplus teachers dated 03.05.2025, his name was not there, in the initial list dated 01.06.2025, his name was there but in the list dated 03.05.2025, issued for the Arts faculty surplus teachers, at Ambikapur, his name was not there. After counseling on 04.06.2025, his name was again included on 05.06.2025, showing vacant post within the district. If the petitioner was surplus at Govt. Middle School, 3 Jagdishpur, he should be called for counseling held on 04.06.2025, therefore, the posting order of the petitioner is arbitrary in exercise of powers that too against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. He would also submit that there is already sufficient teacher posted for Arts faculty at Govt. Middle School, Lamdarha and he would again be declared surplus there. Therefore, the impugned order of his posting is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is not disputing that he is surplus at Govt. Middle School, Jagdishpur. His grievance is only that he has not been provided any opportunity to participate in counseling held on 04.06.2025. The petitioner was provided opportunity of district level counseling held on 06.06.2025 and the petitioner himself has made his representation, in which he stated that on 05.06.2025 the schools within the district were shown at the time of counseling. There is no violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Lamdarha. From the documents annexes with the petition and pleadings, it transpires that he could not dispute that he was surplus at Govt. Middle School, Jagdishpur. He has been declared surplus and 4 after counseling held on 06.06.2025, he has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Lamdarha. District Jashpur. With respect to inclusion and exclusion of his name in the list of surplus teachers and counseling held on 04.06.2025 and 06.06.2025, the petitioner has already made his representations on 12.06.2025 and 14.07.2025 to the respondent authorities and it is for the respondent authorities to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner after verification of the relevant records. The petitioner could not demonstrate by placing sufficient documents to draw attention of this Court for interference in the order impugned. 6. 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 5 instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 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. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge