1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5169 of 2025 1 - Chandrika Prasad Sahu S/o Fulchand Sahu Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Primary School Jhipatola Block Charama, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Block Charama District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 30/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) has been transferred from VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:53:15 +0530 2 Govt. Primary School, Jhipatola (Charama) to Govt. Primary School, Benur, Block Koylibeda 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 quash the order dated 05/06/2025 issued by Secretary and District Education Officer, Rationalisation Committee, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That the Hon'bel Court may kindly be pleased to quash the clause 10(6) of the rationalization guidelines dated 02/08/2024. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted an Assistant Teacher (LB) and is posted at Govt. Primary School, Jhipatola. He has been transferred vide transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3146, dated 05.06.2025 to Primary School, Benur, Block Koylibeda. Thereafter on the same day i.e. 05.06.2025, another transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.- Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has been issued and the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Jhipatola, Block Charama to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kavtintola, Block Kanker. Pursuant to the 3 transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838, the petitioner had joined at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kavtintola on 06.06.2025, which has been informed to the District Education Officer, Kanker on 09.06.2025. While rationalizing the petitioner, the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have not been followed and the vacant posts of Teachers in each and every schools as per the number of students have not been displayed at the time of counseling. No proper opportunity was provided to opt the schools and the counseling was conducted in a hasty manner. He would further submit that two orders for different places have been issued against the petitioner on the same day by the same authority and the subsequent order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has been complied with and petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting, and therefore, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./ 2025/3146, dated 05.06.2025 may be quashed. He would rely upon the order dated 30.09.2015, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2930 of 2014, order dated 16.07.2015, passed in WPS No. 1015 of 2015, and also the order passed by this Court, dated 23.06.2025 in WPS No. 4909 of 2025. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, initially the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3146, dated 05.06.2025 was issued by which the petitioner has been transferred to Primary School, Benur, Block Koylibeda. Due to clerical mistake, on the same day another order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838, dated 4 05.06.2025 has been issued, by which the petitioner has been transferred to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola, Block Kanker. On 05.06.2025 itself, when the District Education Officer came to know about the mistake, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.- Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has been cancelled vide order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3356 and transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3146 has been made effective and operative. Despite knowing that the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has been cancelled, the petitioner went for joining at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola and gave his joining on 06.06.2025, though the transfer order has already been cancelled on 05.06.2025 itself. When the authorities came to know about his joining at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola, they also disowned the joining of the petitioner there vide memo No. Stha.04/Karyabhar Prati./2025/4308, dated 19.06.2025 by saying that the transfer of the petitioner at Kevtintola has already been cancelled vide order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3356, dated 05.06.2025. He would further submit that before 05.06.2025, one Smt. Manju Sahu, who is Assistant Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Khartha, Block Charama to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola vide order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./ 2025/3184, dated 04.06.2025, and therefore, there is no vacant post available at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola. It is also submitted by him that it is not a case, where the transfer order has been complied with and it cannot be set-aside. It is a case, where transfer 5 order has already been cancelled before the joining of the petitioner and his joining has also been disowned. Vide order dated 05.06.2025, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3146 has been made effective, and therefore, there is no merit in the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) is claiming that, vide transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838, he has been transferred to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola, Block Kanker and in pursuance thereof, he has joined there at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola on 06.06.2025 and his joining has also been informed to the District Education Officer on 09.06.2025. From perusal of the order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3356, issued on 05.06.2025, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/ Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has been cancelled, by which the petitioner was transferred to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola and the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/ 3146 has been made effective, therefore, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 was not in existence on the date, when the petitioner claimed to be joined on 06.06.2025 at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola. His joining has also been disowned by the District Education Officer, North Bastar, Kanker vide memo dated 19.06.2025 on the ground that the said transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has already been 6 cancelled. Further, it appears from the documents submitted by the respondents/State that on 04.06.2025, one Smt. Manju Sahu, Assistant Teacher (LB) has already been transferred to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola vide transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/ Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3184, dated 04.06.2025. It further transpires that before the claimed joining of the petitioner at Kevtintola, the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838 has already been cancelled, therefore, it cannot be approved that the petitioner had joined at P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola pursuant to the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./ 2025/3838, as the same was not in existence on 06.06.2025. There may be some difference in dispatch number of the transfer order, but the said difference does not affect the substantive cancellation of the transfer order of the petitioner, by which he was mistakenly transferred to P.M. Shree Primary School, Kevtintola. 5. The orders cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are with respect to the issue that, once the transfer order has been complied with, it cannot be revoked. Here the issue is different that before compliance of the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3838, the same has already been cancelled vide order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/3356, dated 05.06.2025 and the said transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/ 3838 was not in existence on 06.06.2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer order No. Yuktiyuktkaran/Saha.Shi.-Pra.Pa./2025/ 3838 has been complied with and it cannot be revoked. The facts and 7 issue involved in the orders cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable with the facts of the present case and no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. 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 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 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. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved