1 2025:CGHC:32153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6336 of 2025 1 - Satya Prakash Pradhan S/o Shri Harvanshi Lal Pradhan Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As Post - Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Pudu, Block-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Karra, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan W/o Satya Prakash Pradhan Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Post - Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Rainpur, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Karra, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division - Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The Principal Government Primary School, Pudu, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - The Principal Government Primary School, Rainpur, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.11 12:31:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner No.1 Satyaprakash Pradhan has been transferred from Primary School, Pudu, Block Kota to Primary School, Lusda, Block Kota and the petitioner No.2 Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan has been transferred from Primary School, Rainpur, Block Kota to Primary School, Peeparpara (Khaira), Block Kota under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call upon the records related to the case of the petitioner from the Respondent Authorities for its kind consideration. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/directions of appropriate nature and set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 04 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner and to decide the representations dated 05.06.2025 sympathetically. 3 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners are husband and wife and presently posted at Primary School, Pudu and Rainpur respectively. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioners were declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published. At the time of considering the Rationalization Instructions, the provisions under the said instructions have not been followed. Both the husband and wife have been posted at different place. The petitioner No.2 has been posted from 30 KMs away from her residence, where no transportation facility is there. The petitioners are having 08 years old child and by the transfer under the rationalization, they would face difficulties and despite availability of nearest school, they have not been transferred there. The petitioner No.1 has made his representation to the authorities concerned on 05.06.2025 and shown his difficulties, but his representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, their transfer orders under the Rationalization Instructions 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 Govt. Primary School, Pudu and Rainpur respectively and under the Rationalization Instructions, they have been declared as surplus Teachers and have been transferred at Primary School, Lusda and 4 Primary School, Peeparpara (Khaira), which are in the same block. The Rationalization Instructions have strictly been followed and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, they have been declared as surplus and have been transferred. The submission of the petitioners that the husband and wife shall be posted at the same place is not available in Rationalization Instructions. Therefore, there is no ground available to the petitioners to challenge the impugned transfer order under the Rationalization Instructions 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 petitioners, who are the Teachers have been transferred to Govt. Primary School, Lusda and Primary School, Peeparpara (Khaira) respectively vide transfer order dated 04.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. From perusal of clause 7-A of the Rationalization Instructions, it is quite vivid that the ground of posting of husband and wife at the same or nearby place is not there. 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 public interest and 5 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