1 - Smt. Leela Verma W/o Late Shri Santosh Verma, Aged About 58 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8546 of 2025 1 - Smt. Leela Verma W/o Late Shri Santosh Verma, Aged About 58 Years R/o Dhaurabhatha, Post Office Nunera, District Korba (C.G.) - 495449, Working As Teacher (Arts) At Govt. Middle School Makhanpur, Block Pali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Member, Education Officer , District Rationalization Committee, District Korba (C.G.) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.13 11:25:16 +0530 Order on Board 2 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 17-07-2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been posted from Middle School, Makhanpur, Block Pali, to Govt. Middle School, Nevsa, Block Pali, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a teacher (Arts) and is posted at Govt. Middle School, Makhanpur. Earlier, another teacher, Smt. Asha Gupta was declared surplus under the rationalization, and she was posted to another school. She challenged her posting order under the rationalization in W.P.S. No.
Decision
4640/2025, which was disposed of on 16-06-2025 with the direction to make her fresh representation to the authorities, who shall decide the same within the stipulated period in accordance with law. Thereafter, the posting order of Smt. Asha Gupta is cancelled, and the petitioner is declared surplus, and she has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Nevsa. He would further submit that as per the circular issued by the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, dated 25-04-2025, the posting order can be issued only up to 04-06-2025, whereas, in the present case, the posting order of the petitioner is issued on 17-07-2025. He would further submit that the Middle School, Nevsa, is situated about 40 km from Makhanpur School, and the petitioner is having difficulties travelling there regularly. Vacant posts of Teacher (Arts) are there in the two nearby schools, and the petitioner can be adjusted there. Therefore, the impugned order of her posting dated 17-07-2025 may 3 be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, opposes and submits that there are 181 students at Makhanpur School and 8 teachers, including head master, were posted. As per clause 7-B(3) of the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, six teachers were required, including the headmaster. The petitioner and one Abhijeet Rao, being the junior-most teachers in the school in the Arts subject, have been declared surplus and have been posted to another school. Earlier, by mistake, Smt. Asha Gupta was declared surplus, and when the authorities examined her case after the order dated 16-06-2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 4640/2025, the mistake was corrected, and the petitioner is declared surplus. It is for the authorities concerned to change the place of posting if any nearest school is having vacant post of teacher in Arts, for which the petitioner has already made her representation. He would further submit that after passing of the order dated 16-06-2025 in W.P.S. No. 4640/2025, the authorities examined the records and then they have passed the order dated 17-07-2025 (Annexure P-1). Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process of Rationalization of the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the date for passing of the posting orders has been fixed as 04-06-2025, and the posting order of the petitioner has been passed on 17-07-2025, which is against the 4 rationalization instructions and is liable to be quashed. In the present case, earlier, one Smt. Asha Gupta, was declared surplus and posted from Middle School, Makhanpur. She filed the W.P.S. No. 4640/2025 before this court, challenging her posting order. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16-06-2025, directing her to move her fresh representation before the authorities and thereafter, the authorities have passed the order on 17-07-2025 declaring the petitioner surplus as she is the junior-most teacher in the Arts subject in the school. In the given facts. It cannot be said that the order is passed arbitrarily or mala fide only on the ground that the restriction was imposed to pass the orders only up to 04-06-2025. The petitioner does not deny that she is the junior-most teacher in the school in the Arts subject, along with one Mr. Abhijeet Rao, who has also been declared surplus. Further, the claim of the petitioner that the vacant post of teacher of Arts is vacant in two nearby schools is to be considered by the authorities concerned under the administrative exigencies and requirement of teachers there. 6. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere 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 5 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/posting matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer/posting order, or the transfer/posting 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. 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