Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.19 10:41:04 +0530 2025:CGHC:47959-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 691 of 2025 1 - Khem Chand Markhande S/o Tetaku Ram Markhande, Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer, Subject English, Government Girls Education, Meregaon, Block Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education OfÏcer, District - Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 2 4 - The Block Education OfÏcer, Block - Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - The Principal, Government Girls Education School, Meregaon, Block Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 6 - The Principal, Government High School, Nelsnar Block Bhairamgarh, District - Bijapur (C.G.) (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. Heard Abhinav Sharma learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 7307 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:- 3 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to set aside the Order No. Yuktikaran/2025-25 dated 05.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 03, issued in violation with the rationalization policy and in effect retain the petitioner to work in the Respondent No. 05 School in interest of justice; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 24.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner's fresh representation had been rejected; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 12.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner is being transferred to Government High School, Nelsnar Block Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur i.e. Respondent No. 06 School. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 4 4. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/appellant, who is a Lecturer (LB), is posted at the Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki. He has been declared surplus there and has been transferred to High School Nelasnaar, Bhairamgarh, Block Bijapur. According to learned counsel, at Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki, there are 245 students and he took more than 4 subject periods every day, yet he has been declared as surplus and has been transferred. From the time table of the school (Annexure P-8), it is clear that the writ petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day and therefore as per clause 7 (C) (1) of the rationalization instructions, if the Lecturers are taking less than 4 periods per day, the junior of them would be considered surplus whereas in the present case the petitioner is taking 4 period. According to learned counsel, the impugned transferred order is against the Rationalization Instructions. According to learned counsel that on 18-06-2025, this court passed the order in W.P.S. No. 4933/2025 directing the petitioner to move his fresh representation within 05 days, and the authorities concerned shall decide the representation within 07 days, but the representation of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 7307/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the 5 appellant/writ petitioner. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is wholly unsustainable as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true import of Clause 7(c) of the Rationalization Policy. He would submit that under Clause 7(c)(3), when more than one lecturer is working against a sanctioned post, only the junior among them can be treated as surplus, whereas in the present case the appellant is working against one of the two sanctioned posts of Lecturer (English) in Respondent No. 5 school and therefore falls within the authorized strength and establishment. It is further contended that the enrolled strength of the said institution is 245 students from Classes 6 to 12, and Clause 7(c)(1) does not prescribe any numerical threshold to determine what constitutes “very less” strength. Counsel submits that Respondent No. 5 school has two sanctioned posts of Lecturer (English), both validly occupied, one by the appellant himself, which clearly demonstrates that the appellant is not surplus. He further submits that the appellant is taking four English lectures daily, as evident from the time table, and in terms of Clause 7(c) (1), only the lecturer with less than four lectures and junior in rank can be declared surplus. Hence, declaring the appellant surplus is contrary to the policy provisions and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6 6. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that there are 139 students in the school and the petitioner has stated the total strength of the students from class 6th to 12th which is total 245 students but in the Higher Secondary School only 139 students are there and as per Clause 7(C)(3) of the rationalization instructions, there were 2 Lecturers and the petitioner being the junior, has been declared surplus. While considering the representation of the petitioner, it is also considered that there is no teaching for more than 4 subject periods by the petitioner. The authorities have passed a reasoned order while considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing thus: 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day of the English subject in the school, and there are 245 students in the school; therefore, as per Clause 7 (C) (1) of the Rationalization Instructions, he cannot be declared as surplus. From perusal of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5), it transpires that the strength of 245 students is the total strength of students from Class 6th to 12th. From the order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-6), the authorities 7 have considered that in the school where the petitioner is posted, having 139 students, and he is a junior lecturer in the English subject in the school, and his subject period is not more than 4, therefore, he has been considered as surplus. Clause 7 (C)(1) and (3) provides that where the number of students is less and 2 Lecturers are posted for one subject, the junior of them would be declared as surplus. In the present case also the petitioner is junior, and his subject period is not more than 4, and therefore, there is no violation of Rationalization Instructions. The authorities have rightly considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same. His representation has been rejected by the authorities concerned, and the petitioner does not want to pursue further representation before the Divisional committee. Therefore, this court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer order or rejection of the representation of the petitioner. Under the Rationalization instruction, he has rightly been considered surplus and transferred. 7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 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 8 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 matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer 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. 8. 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. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 9. 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 9 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 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, 10 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 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 11 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). 10. 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 shoaib