1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4278 of 2025 1 - Sarojbala Jaiswal W/o. Shri Ramavtar Jaiswal Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Teacher, Government Middle School, Sector-5, Balco, Block Division Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee, Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 7 - Shiv Narayan Kumbhkar Teacher (Maths), Middle School, Sector-5, Balco, Block Division, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:52:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 03-06-2025 and 05-06-2025 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from the Middle School, Sector-5, Block Korba, to PM Shree School Tilkeja, Block Korba, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 04-09-2017 and was posted at Middle School, Sector-5, Korba as a Hindi Teacher. She is having a Hindi Literature subject in her graduation, and he should be treated as a Teacher (Hindi), but she has been treated as a Teacher (Arts) and has been declared as a surplus. Had he been treated as a teacher Hindi, she would not have been declared surplus. The subject of graduation of the teachers should be considered while considering their rationalization as the subject teacher, as per the notification dated 05-03-2019 issued by the State Government. The impugned transfer order of the petitioner is against the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Education Code, 2022. He would also submit that Clauses 7(B)(4) and 7(B)(5) of the rationalization instructions have been violated by the authorities. The total students in the Middle School Sector-5 is 106 and the requirement is 1 Head Master and 4 teachers. The Headmistress of the School Smt. Anita Rathore is from the Maths subject. The Respondent No. 7 is also a 3 Maths teacher and he should be treated as a surplus teacher. The petitioner is having a Hindi Literature subject in his graduation, and therefore, she is eligible to remain there and is not surplus. The petitioner is declared as a surplus teacher in the Arts subject. He would further submit that in the counselling, the Respondent No. 7 was to be declared as surplus in the Arts subject; instead of declaring the Respondent No. 7 as surplus in the Arts subject, the petitioner has been declared as surplus in the Arts subject, whereas the petitioner belongs to the Hindi subject. The petitioner raised her objection at the time of counselling, but it was not given any heed. The petitioner has made her representation on 30-05-2025 and 05-06-2025, but the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the transfer order of the petitioner under the garb of Rationalization is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Teaching and Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, were notified on 05-03-2019, Schedule-I of which provides minimum qualification for Assistant Teachers and Teachers. One of the minimum qualifications for Teachers is graduation and a 2-year Diploma in Education. Schedule-I also provides the subjects of graduation as an essential subject in graduation. The other qualifications are also prescribed. The teachers cannot be identified by their subject in graduation, but they could be identified by their subject they teach in the school. The petitioner himself claimed to be a teacher of the Hindi subject because 4 he has Hindi Literature in his graduation as one of the subjects, which is not correct. Even if the petitioner is to be considered as a Hindi Teacher, then also, the petitioner would be declared as surplus because one Usha Shukla, who is senior to the petitioner, who joined the school on 02-08-2007, also has the Hindi subject in her graduation. The roster given in clause 7(B)(5) has been duly complied with, and the petitioner is declared surplus in the Arts subject. The roster for the Rationalization has been duly complied with as per the set-up and availability of teachers in the school. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process of Rationalization of the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the subject teacher of Hindi as Hindi Literature was one of the subjects in his graduation, and therefore, he should be considered as a Teacher of the Hindi subject and as per the roster, she may not be treated as a surplus teacher at Government Middle School, Sector-5. There is no definition of "Subject Teacher" in the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The literal meaning of Subject Teacher is that the teachers who are teaching the particular subject in the school may be called as subject teacher. The appointment of the petitioner is not for any particular subject. She may have a subject of Hindi Literature in his graduation, but she cannot be considered a teacher (Hindi) only for the reason that 5 she had the Hindi Literature subject in his graduation. 6. The consideration of the subject teacher is the subject in which the teachers are teaching in the school at the relevant point in time, and not the subject of their graduation. Therefore, the petitioner has been considered as "Teacher (Arts)" and declared as a surplus teacher at Middle School, Sector-5. 7. The petitioner as well as respondent No.7 were both considered as teachers (Arts) in the school. Clause 10(7) of the Rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024 provides the process of counselling and preference for calling teachers for Rationalization. As per Clause 10(7) of the instruction dated 02-08-2024, firstly, those teachers are to be called whose tenure is remaining less than 2 years; thereafter, the female teachers are to be given priority. After the counselling, the petitioner has been declared as surplus teacher at Middle School, Sector-5, in which this court does not find any illegality or irregularity calling for interference with the impugned order. 8. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization 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 6 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. 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. 9. 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. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved