Smt. Leela Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.12 18:09:17 +0530 2025:CGHC:46716-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 677 of 2025 Smt Leela Verma W/o Late Shri Santosh Verma, Aged About 58 Years R/o Dhaurabhatha, Post Office Nunera, District Korba (C.G.) Pin Code - 495449, Working As Teacher (Arts In Hindi Leterature) At Govt. Middle School Makhanpur, Block Pali, District -Korba (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education De- partment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dis- trict -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Office of The Collectorate, Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The 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) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ajaya Kumar Barik, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advo- cate General 2
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajaya Kumar Barik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and may kindly be quashed the order dated 25/07/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court and stayed the order dated 17/07/2025 issued by respondent No.3, and service of petitioner may be posted in earlier place of posting where she was serving her duty, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.8546/2025 (Smt. Leela Verma v. State of
Decision
Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ 3 petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed, thereby upholding the action/decision of the respondents which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that the petitioner was serving as a Teacher (Arts) and was posted at Government Middle School, Makhanpur. Earlier, another teacher, namely Smt. Asha Gupta, had been declared surplus under the rationalization policy and was posted to another school. Smt. Asha Gupta had challenged her posting order in W.P.(S) No.4640/2025, which was disposed of on 16.06.2025 with a direction to her to make a fresh representation before the authorities, who were directed to decide the same within the stipulated period in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the posting order of Smt. Asha Gupta was cancelled, and instead, the petitioner was declared surplus and was posted at Government Middle School, Nevsa. As per the circular dated 25.04.2025 issued by the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, posting orders could be issued only up to 04.06.2025, whereas, in the petitioner’s case, the impugned posting order was issued on 17.07.2025. The Government Middle School, Nevsa, was situated about 40 kilometers away from Makhanpur School, and the petitioner was facing difficulties in travelling there regularly. There were vacant posts of Teacher (Arts) available in two nearby schools where the petitioner could have been adjusted. 4 5. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.8546/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.07.2025. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.8546/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7. Mr. Ajaya Kumar Barik, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order dated 17.07.2025, passed by respondent No.3–Collector, has been challenged before this Court. He submits that the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the basis of the rationalization policy and in order to protect the interest of one Smt. Asha Gupta, by which the petitioner’s case has not been entertained. According to him, such rejection is contrary both to the transfer policy as well as the rationalization policy of the State Government. He further submits that on the strength of the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Single Judge has passed the order dated 25.07.2025 without properly considering the applicable policy of the State Government, and thus erroneously rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence, inasmuch 5 as there is no rule prescribed under the Fundamental Rules in relation to rationalization, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He also submits that the respondents have violated the statutory Fundamental Rules as well as the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Although the Courts have limited scope to interfere with administrative actions in matters of transfer and posting, in cases where the authorities act in violation of their own policies and constitutional guarantees, interference is warranted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner places reliance on the circular dated 28.07.2025 issued by respondent No.1– Secretary, Department of School Education. He points out that in paragraph 7(B), Clauses 4 and 5, it has been categorically provided that in a given subject, if there are two teachers, the junior-most is to be declared surplus. He submits that according to the subject-wise chronological order, including headmasters, priority has to be given in the following sequence: (i) English, (ii) Mathematics, (iii) Sanskrit/Arts, (iv) Science, (v) Hindi, and (vi) Urdu/Commerce. He points out that the petitioner is the only teacher in the subject of Hindi Literature, whereas Smt. Asha Gupta, who was declared protected, teaches Economics. Moreover, Smt. Asha Gupta was promoted as Upper Division Teacher in the year 2011, while the petitioner was promoted as UDT earlier in 2010 and was posted at Government Middle School, Makhanpur, in 2014 on the basis of rationalization. Thus, 6 the petitioner is senior to Smt. Asha Gupta. He further submits that, as per the information displayed on the notice board of Government Middle School, Makhanpur, Block Pali, District Korba, there are 2–3 teachers available in each of the other subjects, whereas in Hindi Literature the petitioner is the only teacher. Therefore, if the petitioner is transferred, the students of that school will be left without any teacher in Hindi Literature. Hence, the impugned transfer is not only illegal but also contrary to the norms and detrimental to the academic interest of students. It is his further submission that rationalization, as introduced by the State Government, has no foundation in service jurisprudence nor in the Fundamental Rules, and it only operates to disturb employees and adversely affect the educational system. Learned counsel finally submits that the learned Single Judge, without considering these aspects and without proper application of mind, has passed the impugned order against the very circulars issued by the State Government. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the rationalization process has been carried out strictly in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the Department of School Education, and no illegality or arbitrariness 7 has been committed by the authorities. It is contended that in Government Middle School, Makhanpur, there are 181 students and 8 teachers, including the Headmaster, were posted. However, as per Clause 7-B(3) of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, only 6 teachers, including the Headmaster, are required in that school. Consequently, two teachers, namely the petitioner and one Abhijeet Rao, who were the junior-most in the Arts subject, were rightly declared surplus and posted to other schools. It is further submitted that earlier, by mistake, Smt. Asha Gupta had been declared surplus, but after disposal of W.P.(S) No.4640/2025 on 16.06.2025, her case was duly reconsidered by the authorities. Upon examination of the records, the error was rectified and the petitioner was correctly declared surplus. Thereafter, the competent authority passed the impugned transfer order dated 17.07.2025. Thus, the petitioner’s grievance that she has been displaced to accommodate Smt. Asha Gupta is unfounded. 10. Learned State counsel also submits that it is for the competent authority to decide the place of posting of a surplus teacher depending upon the availability of vacancies, and the petitioner has already made a representation for adjustment in a nearby school which is under due consideration. The scope of judicial review in transfer and posting matters is extremely limited, and unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules is shown, no interference is called for. It is further argued that rationalization is 8 a policy decision taken by the Government in the interest of maintaining teacher–student ratio and ensuring equitable distribution of teaching staff across schools. Such policy decisions fall within the domain of the executive, and the courts ought not to interfere with them in absence of patent illegality. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2025 is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and the applicable policy, and does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.8546/2025. 12. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “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 rationalization instructions and is liable to be quashed. In the present case, earlier, one Smt. Asha Gupta, was declared surplus and 9 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 10 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 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 11 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.” 13. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and applied the settled principles of law. The impugned transfer order dated 17.07.2025 has been 12 issued pursuant to the rationalization exercise undertaken by the Department of School Education in accordance with the instructions dated 02.08.2024. The appellant, being one of the junior-most teachers in the Arts subject, has been declared surplus along with another teacher. The contention that she has been displaced only to protect the interest of Smt. Asha Gupta is not borne out from the record, since the earlier error in declaring Smt. Asha Gupta surplus was duly rectified by the authorities after disposal of W.P.(S) No.4640/2025 and on examination of relevant documents. 14. We also find that the plea advanced by the appellant with respect to the cut-off date of 04.06.2025 does not merit acceptance. The authorities have passed the order dated 17.07.2025 after reconsideration of the case of Smt. Asha Gupta in compliance with the order of this Court dated 16.06.2025, and therefore the issuance of the impugned transfer order beyond the said date cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide. Moreover, the appellant herself does not dispute that she falls within the category of surplus teachers in terms of Clause 7-B(3) of the rationalization policy. 15. It is well settled that transfer and posting are incidents of service and fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Unless mala fides, want of jurisdiction, or violation of statutory rules is demonstrated, no interference is warranted by the writ Court. The 13 rationalization policy being an administrative measure to ensure proper distribution of teachers as per student strength, is a policy decision of the Government taken in public interest and administrative exigency. The Courts have consistently held that such matters are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review. 16. In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to establish that the impugned transfer order suffers from mala fide, incompetence of the authority, or violation of any statutory rule. On the contrary, the order is in consonance with the applicable rationalization instructions and settled legal principles. We also note the submission of the learned State counsel that the representation made by the appellant/writ petitioner for adjustment in a nearby school is already under consideration, and it is for the authorities to take an appropriate decision in that regard in accordance with law. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu