1 - Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik D/o Daduram Kaushik Aged About 54 Years Posted As v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.26 17:56:23 +0530 2025:CGHC:43147-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 629 of 2025 1 - Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik D/o Daduram Kaushik Aged About 54 Years Posted As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Sadar, Block Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director School Education Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education OfÏcer District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) 5 - Collector, District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) 2
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Sunita Kashyap Posted At Government Middle School Gaushala, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa C.G. 7 - Smt. Ashwani Joshi Posted At Government Girls Middle School Janjgir, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur learned Additional Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4770/2025 (Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik V/s State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ 3 petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently posted as Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts at Government Middle School, Sadar, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa. she was initially appointed as Teacher (Lower Division) on 10.07.1995, later promoted as Head Master (Primary School) on 22.06.2009, and thereafter promoted as Teacher (Upper Division) on 22.07.2010. A list of excess teachers was issued for Block Nawagarh, in which the petitioner’s name appeared above that of the private respondents, as she is senior to them. However, at the time of counselling, the petitioner’s name was ignored, and the private respondents, though junior, were called for counselling and allotted schools. The petitioner raised objections, but to no avail. Subsequently, another list of excess teachers was issued at the district level wherein the petitioner’s name was again included, and later a third list was also issued placing his name at Serial No. 49. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the authorities, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector, pointing out that despite 4 being senior, his name was left out during the first counselling while juniors were given preference and postings. The petitioner contends that his posting is neither on account of any adverse service record nor any administrative exigency, but is mechanical, arbitrary, and contrary to settled legal principles, as transfer and posting must be guided by rules, seniority, and public interest. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 4770/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.06.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is against the settled principles of law thus is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Single Bench has committed grave error in dismissing
Decision
the writ petition by holding that there was no illegality on the part of the respondent authorities, whereas in fact the petitioner, despite being senior, was not called for counselling and a junior teacher, whose name appeared below the petitioner in the list, was called and accommodated, thereby violating the principles of seniority and due process. It is 5 contended that such omission and commission on the part of the respondent authorities has seriously prejudiced the appellant and adversely affected his future prospects. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge failed to consider and appreciate the material facts and grievances raised by the appellant, and the impugned order of dismissal, being arbitrary and unjust, warrants interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4770/2025, vide order dated 25/06/2025, holding that the writ petitioner, who is a Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts 6 subject in Govt. Middle School, Sadar has assailed her transfer order, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, which has been issued in furtherance of the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The dispute involved in this case, being factual in nature, ought not to go into when the Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode of consideration for rationalization. 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. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- 7 court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib