1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6717 of 2025 1 - Satpal Sharma S/o Late Shri Dharampal Sharma Aged About 61 Years (D.O.B- 15.07.1964), Occupation- Lecturer (History) E-Cadre At Government Higher Secondary School Bhagat Singh, Block- Jagdalpur, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Near Kisan Bakery, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Employee Code- 15250610592 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Raipur, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector-Cum-District Level Chairman Uktiuktran Samiti Bastar Jagdalpur District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary Uktiuktran Samiti Bastar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 10:54:43 +0530 2 14/07/2025 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 Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur (Bastar), to Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh, 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 call for entire records pertains to Petitioner, in original from the Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.5, as also, the record pertains to Counselling dated 02.06.2025. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set the order bearing aside/quash No./Est.2/Ukti. U.K./2025/619, Nava Raipur dated 12.06.2025 whereby the Petitioner's services are transferred/posted from Government Higher Secondary School Bhagat Singh, Block-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar to Government High School Nansiya, Block-Raigarh, District-Raigarh, and direct the Respondent No.4 & 5 to allow the Petitioner to continue his services at Government Higher Secondary School Bhagat Singh, Block-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3 & 4 in prefixing of period of relieving/joining as per their own wish, therefore this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to 3 quash/set-aside the Ex-Parte relieving, if any, by virtue of above clause.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Lecturer (History) and was posted at Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur (Bastar). He was promoted on the post of Lecturer (History) vide order dated 19-06-2017 and posted at Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur. He is senior to Sanjay Dewangan, but he has not given any benefit of his seniority and Sanjay Dewangan has been posted at Jagdalpur, whereas the petitioner has been posted at Raigarh. There is a clear violation of clause 10.7 of the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, and the surplus teachers, whose service is remaining less than 02 years, have not been given any priority at the time of counselling. He is going to retire on 31-07-2026, and as per the sanctioned setup, he was not a surplus Lecturer there. He would also submit that clause 1.6 of the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 also provides that the employees, whose tenure remains less than one year, should not be transferred. The petitioner is the General Secretary of Chhattisgarh State Teachers Association and is entitled to protection under clause 10(7)(3) of the Rationalization instructions. No proper opportunity to opt the school has been provided to the petitioner. He has moved his representation on 06-06-2025 and 13-06-2025, but the same has not been considered till date, and therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 4 instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur. The transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 is not applicable in the present case, as the present case is of Rationalization of the teachers/Lecturers. It is not a simple transfer due to administrative exigencies. There is no restriction in the Rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024 that the Lecturers, who attain the age of 61 years, cannot be transferred. The notice for counselling was issued on 02-06-2025, which was to be held on 04-06-2025, and the petitioner cannot claim that no proper opportunity was provided to him at the time of counselling. The petitioner had not appeared in the counselling, and Sanjay Dewangan has opted for SUMV school, Jagdalpur. Thereafter, the only school left at Raigarh for Lecturer (History), which was allotted to the petitioner in the state- level counselling. All the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have been strictly followed, and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been transferred. There is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge his transfer order under the Rationalization, 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. 5. The petitioner, who is the Lecturer (History), has been transferred to the Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh, vide transfer order dated 12-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. After promotion, in the year 2017, the petitioner was posted there at 5 Government Higher Secondary School, Bhagat Singh, Jagdalpur. Though he is senior to Sanjay Dewangan, he has not appeared in the initial counselling and then Sanjay Dewangan had opted for SUMV school, Jagdalpur and thereafter in the state-level counselling, the petitioner is allotted the Government High School, Nansiya, Raigarh. As per the notice issued on 02-06-2025 for counselling and list annexed with the petition at page No. 19, it transpires that the petitioner was provided the opportunity to opt for the school giving priority, as provided under clause 10.7 of the Rationalization instruction. There is no such condition that the teachers/Lecturers, whose tenure remains less than 02 years, cannot be transferred. The transfer policy issued on 05-06-2025 is entirely different from the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. Present is a case under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. There are no documents annexed with the petition that the petitioner is the General Secretary of Chhattisgarh State Teachers Association. This court does not find any infirmity in the Rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer order dated 12-06-2025, which warrants interference of this court. 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 6 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. 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