1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5594 of 2025 1 - Reena Sahu W/o Shri Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Kanya Parisar, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions (Dpi) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Division Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 12-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from Girls Education Campus, Ambikapur, to Govt. Boys Higher ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 11:17:37 +0530 2 Secondary School, Sukma, under the rationalization instructions dated 02- 08-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is posted at Girls Education Campus, Ambikapur, from 17-10-2022 as a Lecturer (LB) (Chemistry) (T-cadre). There are two Lecturers (Chemistry) in the school, and the other Lecturer (Chemistry), Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh Bhadoria, is going to retire on 31-08-2025; thereafter, the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) would become vacant. In the Rationalization process, she has been considered as surplus and a list of surplus Lecturers has been issued by the Respondent No. 5 in which her name is at Sr. No. 17. On 02-06-2025, she made her representation to the authorities concerned and raised her objection that after retirement of Mr. Vinod Singh Bhadoria, there would be no Lecturer (Chemistry) in the school, and she may be remain there, but the petitioner has declared as surplus. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the name of the petitioner is shown as the Lecturer (Science), and Snehlata Pathak has not been declared as surplus. The name of the petitioner does not appear in the District Level list, whereas her name appeared in the Divisional and State Level lists. The petitioner was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling, despite her name appearing on the list. The petitioner would face hardship in her family responsibilities. 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, on instructions, opposes and submits that the petitioner and one Vinod Kumar Bhadoria were the Lecturer (Chemistry) and they were posted at Girls Education Campus, Ambikapur. The strength of the students in the school is 127 and one post of Lecturer (Chemistry) is sanctioned. Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhadoria is senior to the petitioner and therefore, she has been declared surplus. For want of availability of vacant post in the Divisional Level, her name was 3 recommended for State Level counselling and thereafter, she has been allotted to Govt. Boys Hr. Sec. School, Sukma. Subsequent vacancy of the posts does not entitle her to remain there at the Girls Education Campus, Ambikapur. The Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 have been duly complied with as per the set-up and availability of Lecturers in the school. The petitioner moved her representation on 02-06-2025, but no grounds as claimed are available to the petitioner. 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 she is the Lecturer (Chemistry)(T- cadre), and on 31-08-2025, the other Lecturer, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhadoria, is going to retire, and then the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) would become vacant there. In the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, there are no provisions about the prospective vacancy of the posts. At the time of Rationalization, there was only one sanctioned post of Lecturer (Chemistry) in the school, on which Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhadoria is posted. The petitioner, being the junior, is declared surplus as provided under Clause 7(C)(3) of the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, and has been transferred to Govt. Boys Hr. Sec. School, Sukma. 6. 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 and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the 4 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. 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 Alok