Satpal Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
Case Details
ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 17:12:57 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:40351-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 600 of 2025 Satpal Sharma S/o Late Shri Dharampal Sharma Aged About 61 Years (D.O.B- 15.07.1964), Occupation- Lecturer (History) E-Cadre At Government Higher Secondary School Bhagat Singh, Block- Jagdalpur, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Near Kisan Bakery, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Employee Code- 15250610592 versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Raipur, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector-Cum-District Level Chairman Uktiuktran Samiti Bastar Jagdalpur District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary Uktiuktran Samiti Bastar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Deputy Director Directorate of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.08 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.S. No.6717/2025 (ANNEXURE A/1) and allow the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6717/2025 (Satpal Sharma v. State of
Decision
Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4 The brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that The petitioner was working as a Lecturer 3 (History) at Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur (Bastar). He had been promoted to the post of Lecturer (History) vide order dated 19.06.2017 and posted at the same school. He was senior to one Sanjay Dewangan, yet no benefit of his seniority was given, and while Sanjay Dewangan was posted at Jagdalpur, the petitioner was transferred to Raigarh. The said transfer was alleged to be in violation of Clause 10.7 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, as surplus teachers with less than two years of service remaining were not given priority during counselling. The petitioner was due to retire on 31.07.2026 and, as per the sanctioned setup, was not a surplus Lecturer. It was also contended that Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 prohibited the transfer of employees whose tenure was less than one year. Being the General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh State Teachers Association, the petitioner claimed entitlement to protection under Clause 10(7)(3) of the Rationalization Instructions. He further contended that no proper opportunity was provided to opt for a school of his choice. His representations dated 06.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 were not considered, and therefore, the transfer order was arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 5 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.6717/2025 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2025. 4 6 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, annexed as Annexure A/1, is contrary to the law, the circulars in force, and the policy of the State Government. It was urged that the learned Single Judge failed to maintain uniformity in dealing with similarly situated appellants, thereby subjecting the present appellant to discrimination. Counsel contended that at the fag end of a government servant’s career, any disruption in service adversely affects the computation and calculation of pension and retiral benefits under the Civil Services Rules, the Pension Rules, and the Fundamental Rules, thereby causing serious hardship in post- retirement settlement. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Rani Jain v. Secretary and Transport Commissioner & Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1615. It is further submitted that the so-called “Uktluktkaran Guidelines” dated 02.08.2024, framed in the garb of the National Education Policy, 2020 and the Right to Education Act, 2009, are purely administrative arrangements issued by the Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Chhattisgarh. These guidelines, not having been approved by the Cabinet nor issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor of the State, carry only persuasive value. 8 Learned counsel argued that the appellant’s services are 5 governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1966, and his cadre, as a Lecturer, falls under Class-II. Vide notification dated 05.06.2025, the State, through the General Administration Department, issued the Transfer Policy, 2025. While the introductory paragraph of the Policy stated that it would not apply to certain departments, including Teachers, Clause 1.6 of the Policy expressly restrained the transfer of employees due to retire within one year. It was contended that the State cannot discriminate between employees of the same cadre/class on the basis of their department, and any instruction or order creating such discrimination is impermissible. The Transfer Policy, 2025, having been issued under the signature of His Excellency the Governor of the State, has binding effect. It was further contended that, in light of the grounds referred to in paragraphs E and T of the memorandum of appeal and particularly Annexure A/3, the dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble Single Judge is not sustainable. The reliance placed in the impugned judgment on Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey & Others (2009) 8 SCC 337, Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others (2007) 8 SCC 212, and Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Others v. State of Bihar & Others 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, was misplaced, as these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Lastly, counsel submitted that the issue of “Uktiuktkaran” was 6 raised by the respondents only in mid-May 2025, and after the filing and disposal of numerous petitions challenging transfers on the ground of rationalization, the State Government issued Order No.GENCOR-35010/1738/2025-GAD-5, Nava Raipur dated 07.07.2025, and Letter No. 2-24/2024/20-Three, Nava Raipur dated 08.07.2025, constituting three-member committees at the Division and District levels, respectively headed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Director, Public Instruction. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that after considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed impugned order dated 14.07.2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 11 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “5. The petitioner, who is the Lecturer (History), has been transferred to the Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh, vide transfer order dated 12-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. After promotion, in the year 2017, the petitioner 7 was posted there at Government Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur. Though he is senior to Sanjay Dewangan, he has not appeared in the initial counselling and then Sanjay Dewangan had opted for SUMV school, Jagdalpur and thereafter in the state- level counselling, the petitioner is allotted the Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh. As per the notice issued on 02-06-2025 for counselling and list annexed with the petition at page No. 19, it transpires that the petitioner was provided the opportunity to opt for the school giving priority, as provided under clause 10.7 of the Rationalization instruction. There is no such condition that the teachers/Lecturers, whose tenure remains less than 02 years, cannot be transferred. The transfer policy issued on 05-06-2025 is entirely different from the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. Present is a case under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. There are no documents annexed with the petition that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Chhattisgarh State Teachers Association. This court does not find any infirmity in the Rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer order dated 12-06- 2025, which warrants interference of this court. 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 8 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. 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.” 12 Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondents, and on a thorough perusal of the records, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge has examined the matter in detail and rightly concluded that the transfer order dated 12.06.2025 was issued pursuant to the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The record reveals that the appellant, after his promotion in 2017, continued at 9 Government Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur, and in the rationalization process, while his junior opted for a posting at Jagdalpur, the appellant was allotted Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh, through state-level counselling. The materials on record also indicate that the appellant was afforded an opportunity to indicate his preference as per Clause 10.7 of the Rationalization Instructions, and there is no condition therein barring the transfer of teachers/lecturers with less than two years of service remaining. 13 The learned Single Judge has further noted that the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 operates independently of the Rationalization Instructions and does not govern the present case. Moreover, the appellant has not produced any documentary proof to substantiate his claim of being the General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh State Teachers Association. 14 It is well settled in law that transfer and posting are incidents of service and lie within the prerogative of the employer to be exercised in public interest and administrative exigency, and that judicial review in such matters is confined to cases involving mala fide action, infringement of statutory rules, or manifest arbitrariness. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey (2009) 8 SCC 337, Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam (2007) 8 SCC 212, and Shilpi 10 Bose (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, reiterate this position. In the present case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any such legal infirmity in the impugned transfer order. 15 In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge. The reasoning given in the impugned order is sound, supported by the record, and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 16 Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu