Smt. Suman Mishra D/o Shri Gyan Datt Mishra, Aged About 55 Years Occupation v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi
Case Details
JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.04 10:36:00 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:44506-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 633 of 2025 Smt. Suman Mishra D/o Shri Gyan Datt Mishra, Aged About 55 Years Occupation - Service (Assistant Teacher L.B.) Posted At Primary School Chhendi Para, Bastar Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.) R/o Vrindawan Colony, Baliram Kashyap Ward No. 43 District Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Directorate, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Cum, Chairman Of Rationalization Committee District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Cum Secretary Of The Rationalization Committee District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer, Bastar District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/ State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. for the State. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6801 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 05/06/2025 (Annexure P/1) as well as the declaration of the petitioner as surplus teacher with further direction to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting that is Primary School, Chhendi Para, Bastar (C.G.). 10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal and proper adjudication of the matter. 10.3 That, a writ/command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and 3 decide the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner by speaking order in consonance with the rationalization policy with time stipulation. 10.4 That, any other relief which is deemed fit and proper under the present facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner along-with cost of the petition. An Affidavit in support of the writ petition is being filed. 4. The writ petitioner contended in the writ petition that she is presently posted as Assistant Teacher (T) at Primary School, Chhendipara, Block Bastar. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and she has been transferred. She was not provided sufficient opportunity to opt the school in counseling and no sufficient time to travel up to the place of counseling was given. According to the petitioner, the Rationalization Instructions have not been followed in its true sense and the authorities have acted in most arbitrary manner in declaring the petitioner as surplus and posted her in a remote area. She being a lady, it is very difficult for her to travel up to more than 60 KMs away from her present place of posting. The date of counseling was fixed on 03.06.2025 and on the same day, she was being communicated about the same. She was at Ayodhya on that day and could not reach by any means to appear in the 4 counseling. The petitioner also pleaded that she has joined in the school on 06.01.2021, whereas the other Assistant Teachers have joined on 13.06.2022 and 14.10.2022, and thus the petitioner is the senior than the other Teachers, yet she has been declared as surplus. She has moved her representation on 17.06.2025, but the same has not been considered. There was lack of transparency in display of the school and declaring the Teachers as surplus, and therefore, the transfer order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 5. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Chhendipara, Block Bastar and under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, she was declared surplus there and has been transferred to Ashram Shala, Bhheja, Block Lohandiguda. Though, the petitioner has filed the document of transfer orders of other Teachers of the school on 13.06.2022 and 14.10.2022, but it would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner has wrongly been declared as surplus in absence of sufficient document. According to the respondents, before the counseling, on 30.05.2025, the notice has been published for counseling held on 03.06.2025 and sufficient time was provided to the Teachers. The petitioner could not demonstrate any ground or violation of the Rationalization Instructions; therefore, no relief can be granted to her in the writ petition. 5 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing thus at paras 5,6 & 7:- 5. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (T) is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Teacher in the school and no proper opportunity to opt other nearest school has been provided to her, because on the same day, she came to know about the counseling and she was at her ancestral house at village Ayodhya for her treatment. From the document (Annexure P/5), it appears that, the notice for counseling on 03.06.2025 has already been issued on 30.05.2025, and therefore, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner to appear in the counseling, as she herself has stated that she had gone to her ancestral house at village Ayodhya for her treatment. Further, the petitioner could not demonstrate any clauses of the Rationalization Instructions and her seniority has not been considered. Though she annexed the transfer orders of other Teachers in the school, but what was the current setup of the school, their subjects, have not been disclosed by the petitioner. From her representation, it appears that she raised her objection only that, she was not provided proper opportunity to appear in counseling. as she was at village Ayodhya. The petitioner could not demonstrate any material irregularity or arbitrariness in Rationalization of the Teachers. The allegation of not providing the 6 sufficient opportunity to appear in counseling, would also not found sufficient to interfere with the impugned transfer order, as she herself has stated that, she had gone to village Ayodhya for her treatment, but when she had gone to Ayodhya, what is the distance and what treatment she had taken, there is no material about the same produced by the petitioner in the petition. 6. 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. 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 7 is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this court vide judgment dated 28.07.2025 in WA No. 529 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “7……..the writ petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Gaushala Naila has assailed her transfer order, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. For primary schools, the rationalization of the teachers are to be considered as per clause 7-A of the said instructions. The process of counseling was also given in the said instructions dated 02.08.2024 in Clause 10. Further, Clause 10 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that the surplus teachers are to be firstly transferred to teacherless schools and then single teacher school and only thereafter, they could be posted in the schools having excess students. For the counseling, the equal number of schools, either teacherless, single teacher or excess students' school should be displayed equal to the surplus teacher, keeping in view that all the teacherless and single teacher school, should be necessarily displayed and only 8 thereafter, the schools having excess students should be displayed. Clause 10.7 of the said instructions also provides the priority to the ladies teachers on the basis of their seniority. 8…..from perusal of clause 7 and 10 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, it is quite vivid that there is proper procedure prescribed to trace the surplus teacher and for their posting in other school either teacherless, single teacher or school having excess students. Further, it also appears that as per clause 10.7 the ladies teachers have given priority and they have been called in counseling and as per their option and choice, they have been posted at the respective places. It cannot be said that the authorities have arbitrarily exercised their powers to declare the writ petitioner surplus and to transfer her services to other school. It is only an administrative exigency under the Rationalization Instructions, 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. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while 9 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-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. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 9. In view of above, the present writ appeal is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 529 of 2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti