NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6206 of 2025 Shashi Shrivastava W/o Shri Vijay Narayan Shrivastava Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Lecutrer At Govt. High School Ajirma, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction(Dpi) Through Its Director Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Division Surguja (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Nishu Gupta Presently Posted As Lecturer Swami Atmanand Nagar Nigam School Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri KS Saini, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03.07.2025 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 High School, Ajirma, Ambikapur, surguja to Govt. Higher Secondary School Cherpalli (Bhopalpatnam), Bijapur, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. Wps 6206 of 2025 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is appointed on 21-06-2012 as a Lecturer (Chemistry) and is posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ajirma (Ambikapur). In the Rationalization process, she has been considered as a Lecturer (Science), whereas she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), and a list of surplus Lecturers has been issued by the Respondent No. 5 in which her name is at Sl. No. 31. On 02-06-2025, she made her representation to the authorities concerned and raised her objection that vide order dated 29-09-2018, the services of the petitioner were merged with the Education department, she remained there and and one Snehlata Pathak, Lecturer (Chemistry), whose substantive posting is also at Higher Secondary School, Siddhma, Rajpur, District Balrampur, is not declared as surplus, 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. He would further submit that on 04-06-2025, at the time of counselling, petitioner was not permitted to participate in counselling by saying that she is a Lecturer (Chemistry), and not surplus. Respondent No. 5, who is junior to the petitioner, was allowed to participate in counselling and has been given posting at Municipal Corporation Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur. The petitioner was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling, despite her name appearing in the list. More over, petitioner is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis, and there are no proper medical facilities at Bhopalpatnam, where she was posted now. Therefore, transfer order of the petitioner under the garb of Rationalization Instructions 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 petitioner and one Snehlata Pathak are Lecturers Wps 6206 of 2025 3 (Chemistry), and they were posted at Govt. High School, Ajirma (Ambikapur). As per the order dated 11-05-2021 (Annexure P-7), the services of the petitioner and Snehlata Pathak, who were discharging their duties against one sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) at Govt. High School, Ajirma, have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths) for drawing of their salary. The petitioner is adjusted on the post of Lecturer (Biology) and Snehlata Pathak was adjusted on the post of Lecturer (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. Both of them have been declared as surplus, and since the petitioner has not participated in the counselling, the available vacant post at Ambikapur School was allotted to Respondent No.5, and in absence of a vacant post, the name of the petitioner is placed for State Level counselling. The Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 have been duly complied with as per the set-up and availability of Lecturers in the school. Petitioner moved her representation on 02-06-2025 and 08-06-2025, but the same have not been considered by the authorities till date. 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), but she has been considered as Lecturer (Science) and has been declared surplus. It is grievance of the petitioner that she was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling on the ground that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry) and there are no surplus Lecturers in the Chemistry subject, and the Respondent No. 5 has been allotted to Ambikapur School. The Wps 6206 of 2025 4 dispute raised by the petitioner, being factual in nature, cannot be examined by this court in writ jurisdiction. From perusal of the order dated 11-05-2021 (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the petitioner and Snehlata Pathak, were the Lecturers (Chemistry) and they have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. The District Level list of Lecturers shows only two categories, i.e. (1) Biology and (2) Science. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, petitioner is considered as the Lecturer (Science), which includes the Chemistry subject as subject of Science. The submission of respondent/state appears to be plausible that in the District level and Divisional level, there was no vacant post available for Lecturer (Chemistry/Science) and therefore, her name is placed in the State Level counselling and she has been allotted the Bhopalpatnam school. 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 government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the transfer/posting of an employee, as considered in the matters of 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 Wps 6206 of 2025 5 documents annexed with the petition, and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court does 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 padma