1 2025:CGHC:31811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4919 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nageshwari Sahu W/o. Shri Ravishankar Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher (Lb), Government Primary School, Sector - 5, Block Division Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 6 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer 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. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.09 19:12:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 31.05.2025, by which she has been transferred from Primary School, Sector-5, Block Korba to Primary School, Kolihadih, Block Korba under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 31/05/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned relieving order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner 80 kms away from the present place of posting from Government Primary School Sector 5 Block Division Korba to Primary School Kolihadih Block Division Korba. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at the nearest Vacant Single Teacher Primary School in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the Rationalization Instructions has not been followed while declaring the 3 petitioner as surplus teacher, despite having vacancy in the nearest school of Belakachhar, Balco-2, Padimar, Risda and Lalghat, the same has not been displayed in the list of schools shown as teacherless and single teacher school, which is in violation of clause 10.2 and 10.24 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is total 49-50 single teacher school at Block Korba, but only 34 schools have been displayed in the list. The petitioner has not provided proper opportunity in counseling process and she was compelled to opt for other schools, which is far away from her present place of posting. She has also filed her representation on 10.06.2025, but the same has not been considered till date. She is having ailment of thyroid and asthma and having family responsibilities of her old aged in-laws, who are dependent upon her, therefore, she has challenged the impugned transfer order under the rationalization. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner who is Assistant Teacher (L.B.) has been transferred from Primary School, Sector-5, Block Korba to Primary School, Kolihadih, Block Korba. In Primary School, Sector-5, there is total 138 students and 06 teachers were posted. As per the Rationalization Instructions, only 05 teachers including the headmaster are to be posted there and as per the date of joining in the school, the petitioner is declared as surplus. On 31.05.2025, an open counseling was called and 287 teacherless/single teacher schools were displayed to opt for the transfer of the teachers. The petitioner was though appeared in the counseling, but has not opted any school 4 and has not given her consent, and therefore, after considering the option selected by the other teachers, the petitioner was posted at remaining school, who were left by the teachers. Since the teacher Smt. Rameshwari Chandra had joined in the school on 21.04.2022 before noon and the petitioner had joined on 21.04.2022 afternoon, further that Smt. Rameshwari Chandra is senior to the petitioner in gradation list also, the petitioner has been declared as surplus and has been transferred. There is no illegality in her transfer order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher (L.B.) in Primary School, Sector-5, Block Korba has assailed her transfer order, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions, dated 02.08.2024. Clause 7-A of the Rationalization Instructions, dated 02.08.2024 provides the process of rationalization in the Primary Schools, which reads as under:- “सात :- अतितशेष शिशक्षकों के तिन्हांकन हेतु प्रक्रियाः- क्रिकासखण्ड स्तरीय सक्रि तित युक्रि!यु!करण ाले क्रिद्यालयों के अतितशेष शिशक्षकों तथा अन्य क्रिद्यालयों के अतितशेष शिशक्षकों के तिन्हांकन हेतु क्रिनम्नानुसार प्रक्रिया अपनायेगीः- A. प्राथक्रि क शाला :- 01. एक ही परिरसर ें युक्रि!यु!करण ाले प्राथक्रि क क्रिद्यालयों के छात्रों की संख्या के अनुपात ें शिशक्षकों की गणना की जायेगी। ूंक्रिक प्रधान पाठक शिशक्षकीय पद है अतः इसकी गणना शिशक्षकीय पद के रूप ें की जायेगी। दोनों क्रिद्यालयों के शिशक्षकों की संख्या को जोड़कर शिशक्षक की गणना छात्र 5 अनुपात ें की जायेगी। 02. युक्रि!यु!करण ाले प्राथक्रि क क्रिद्यालयों की कु ल दज; संख्या यक्रिद 60 या उससे क है हां एक प्रधान पाठक एं एक सहायक शिशक्षक रहेंगे। शेष अतितशेष की श्रेणी ें आयेंगे। यक्रिद दोनों प्राथक्रि क शालाओं ें प्रधान पाठक पदस्थ है तो जो प्रधान पाठक कक्रिनष्ठ होगा उसे अतितशेष ाना जायेगा तथा जहाँ कोई भी प्रधानपाठक पदस्थ नहीं है हाँ दो शिशक्षक पदस्थ रहेगें। 03. जिजन क्रिद्यालयों की दज; संख्या 61 से 90 होगी हां प्रधान पाठक सक्रिहत तीन शिशक्षक, 91 से 120 ें प्रधान पाठक सक्रिहत ार शिशक्षक, 121 से 150 तक की दज; संख्या ें प्रधान पाठक सक्रिहत 5 शिशक्षक रहेंगे। इसी प्रकार आगा ी ृतिG पर शिशक्षक पदस्थ क्रिकये जाये की काय;ाही की जायेगी। 04. शाला ें पदस्थ / काय;भार ग्रहण क्रिदनांक के आधार पर कक्रिनष्ठत सहायक शिशक्षक अतितशेष ाने जायेंगे। 05. स ीप की प्राथक्रि क शालाओं के युक्रि!यु!करण के फलस्रूप अतितशेष शिशक्षकों की गणना बिंKदु . 01 से 04 अनुसार की जायेगी। 06. क्रिKन्दु . 01 से 05 से पृथक अन्य प्राथक्रि क क्रिद्यालय जिजनका युक्रि!यु!करण नहीं क्रिकया गया है, परंतु हां दज; संख्या के अनुपात ें सहायक शिशक्षक अतितशेष है, क्रिकासखण्ड स्तरीय सक्रि तित उनकी भी पृथक से सूी तैयार करेगी।” 6. As per the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, the petitioner has joined in the school on 21.04.2022 afternoon and she is junior to Smt. Rameshwari Chandra, she has been declared as surplus teacher and the strength of the school is 138 students, in which 05 teachers are required including the headmaster as provided under clause 7-A(3) and the junior most teachers in the school as per their date of joining, would be declared as surplus teacher. The petitioner being the junior most teacher in the school, has been declared as surplus and has been transferred. Further, the available schools of teacherless/single teacher have been displayed at the time 6 of counseling, in which there is no infirmity or illegality is apparent from the documents annexed with the petition. 7. 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 submissions made by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 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 orders are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved