1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5402 of 2025 1 - Ramcharan Sidar S/o Shri Punit Ram Sidar Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Teacher Lb Government Middle School Basen, Block Udaypur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Sarguja Division Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Collector Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 06-06- 2025 and 12-06-2025 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) whereby the services of the SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.15 10:50:56 +0530 2 petitioner have been transferred from the Government Middle School, Salka, Block Udaypur (Surguja), to Government Middle School Songersa, Block Bagicha (Jashpur), under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned transfer/posting order Dated 06.06.2025(Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent Joint Director, Sarguja Division. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned transfer/posting order Dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) issued by respondent Joint Director, Sarguja Division. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (LB) and is posted at Government Middle School, Salka, Block Udaypur, District Surguja, and he has been transferred to Government Middle School, Songersa, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. He would submit that vide order dated 12-06-2025, the place of present posting of the petitioner is amended as Government Middle School, Basen, Block Udaypur, and from where he has been transferred to Government Middle School, Songersa, Bagicha. He would further submit that in the District level list of surplus teachers, the name of the petitioner is not there, and therefore, he could not appear in the counselling. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 5 issued another list of surplus teachers, as per their seniority list, in which the UDICSE Code of the Schools, the employees’ code, etc., were wrongly mentioned. Initially, the wrong place of his posting was considered, and a subsequently amended order was issued. Proper opportunity of hearing was 3 not provided to the petitioner before counselling, and directly issued the list of surplus teachers under the Rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner moved his representation before the authorities concerned on 13- 06-2025, but the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioners were posted at the Government Middle School, Basen, Block Udaypur, but due to clerical mistake, his name has been shown to be posted at Government Middle School, Salka, Block Udaypur, and when the mistake came into knowledge, immediately it was corrected. The transferred place of posting of the petitioner is not changed. He would further submit that at Government Middle School, Basen, there were 57 students registered and 5 teachers were posted, including one Headmaster. As per the Rationalization instructions, on the strength of 105 students, there could be 04 teachers, including the Headmaster. As per the roster, the teachers of Arts, Science, English and Maths are posted there. Though the petitioner is senior in the school, his subject is Sanskrit, and as per the roster, the teacher of the Sanskrit subject would be declared as surplus because he comes last. Since there was no vacant post remaining in the district-level counselling, the name of the petitioner was forwarded for divisional level counselling, but he remained absent in the counselling; therefore, he was posted at Government Middle School, Songersa (Jashpur). The Rationalization Instructions have strictly been followed, and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, he has been declared surplus and has been transferred. There is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge his transfer order, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4 5. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (LB), has been transferred to the Government Middle School, Songersa (Jashpur) vide transfer order dated 06.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. Though the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 have not been annexed with the petition to show the condition which is said to be violated, but from the submissions made by the State counsel, it appears that there is a condition in Clause 7- B(5) of theRationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 about the roster on which the subject teachers are to be considered for rationalization. In that roster, the Sanskrit subject comes after English, Maths, Arts and Science. Therefore, the submission of the State counsel that even if the petitioner is senior in the school, his subject is Sanskrit and therefore, as per the strength of the school, he is to be declared as surplus, is plausible. The submission of the petitioner that if the correct UDISE and school code would be displayed in the list, he would be in a better position to select the school is not have much force because he immediately has not made any objection when the district level list was published, and as and when the mistake came into knowledge, the same is corrected. Further, in the divisional level counselling, the petitioner has not appeared and therefore, the school was allotted to him, whichever was remained. The petitioner could not demonstrate the violation of any condition of the said Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, which warrants any interference in the impugned transfer orders. 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 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 5 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 sagrika