1 2025:CGHC:29251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6427 of 2025 1 - Smt. Deepika Sarwa W/o Shri H.L. Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years Occupation- Teacher (L.B.) Government Middle School Mainpur Charama, North Bastar Kanker District Kanker (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director School, Division Bastar - Jagdalpur District - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer North Bastar Kanker, Office Of The District Education Officer, District - Kanker (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Sukma Office Of The District Education Officer District - Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Charama District - North Bastar Kanker, Office Of The Block Education Officer, Charama District - Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Konta Office Of The Block Education Officer, Konta District - Sukma (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.01 19:57:52 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from Govt. Middle School, Mainpur, Block Charama, District North Bastar- Kanker to Middle School, Dubbatota, Block Konta, District Sukma under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs in her writ petition:- ”10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 19/6/2025 passed by the respondent no.2 Joint Director School Division Bastar Jagdalpur posting the petitioner at Government Middle School Dubbatota Block Konta District Sukma (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (LB) and posted at Govt. Middle School, Mainpur, Block Charama. She was appointed as Upper Division Teachers on 25.02.2022 and posted there at Govt. Middle School, Mainpur on probation period of 03 years from 25.02.2022 to 25.02.2025. The petitioner was on child care leave from 14.01.2025 to 13.04.2025 i.e. 3 for the period of 03 months. The probation period of the petitioner was to be completed on 25.02.2025, but prior to that she went on child care leave on 14.01.2025. She further submitted that the State Government had issued a notification on 04.10.2018 with respect to child care leave to the female employees and as per clause 2(4)(b) of the said notification, it has been provided that, if the child care leave is granted during the probation period of the employee, the probation period would be extended for the term, for which the employee was on child care leave. The petitioner was on child care leave for 03 months and when she came back from the leave, the period of 03 months would be counted from the date of completion of her leave i.e. from 14.04.2025 and she should be treated on probation till that period. She has further submitted that, as per clause 10(6) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the Teachers, who are on probation, shall not be treated as surplus and they could be transferred only after completion of their probation period, yet, the respondent No.2 by the impugned order transferred the petitioner from Mainpur to Dubbatota, which is against the circulars and Rationalization Instructions issued by the State Government. The petitioner had submitted her various representations to the respondent authorities from 02.06.2025 to 09.06.2025 against placement of her name as surplus Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Mainpur, but the same has not been considered by the authorities and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has 4 submitted that the petitioner is trying to take benefit of the probation period, which has already been over after completion of 03 years from the date of her appointment/joining. Even if the petitioner’s leave of child care for 03 months would be taken into consideration, after 03 months from 25.02.2025, her probation period is completed on 25.05.2025. He would further submit that as per the notification dated 04.10.2018, the petitioner is entitled for extended period of probation only for about a month, because as per her appointment order, her probation period was to be completed on 25.02.2025. Prior to that, she went on child care leave on 14.01.2025, and therefore, as per clause 2(4)(b) of the notification dated 04.10.2018, she is entitled only for extension of that period, for which she went on leave and her probation period was to be completed. Therefore, in any case on the case of passing of the order dated 19.06.2025, she cannot take benefit that she was on probation and her services cannot be transferred. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the benefit of probation period and transfer during the probation period. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 25.02.2022 and posted at Govt. Middle School, Mainpur for the probation period of 03 years, which came to be end on 25.02.2025. It 5 is also not in dispute that, prior to the completion of her probation period, she went on child care leave on 14.01.2025 for 03 months and rejoined on 12.04.2025. With respect to the extension of the probation period of the employees who went on child care leave has been provided in clause 2(4)(b) of the notification dated 04.10.2018, issued by the State Government and the same is necessary to quote here:- “(ख) यह सामान्य रूप से परि वीक्षा कालावधि के दौ ान स्वीकृ त नहीं किकया जाएगा। तथाकिप, किवशेष परि स्थिस्थधितयों में, यकिद परि वीक्षा कालावधि के दौ ान अवकाश स्वीकृ त किकया जाता है तो परि वीक्षा की अवधि, उस कालावधि के ब ाब अवधि तक के लिलए बढ़ा दी जाएगी, जिजसके लिलए अवकाश स्वीकृ त किकया गया है।” 6. The petitioner is claiming benefit of extension of probation for further period of 03 months from the date of her rejoining after completion of child care leave. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived in view of the provisions of 2(4)(b) of the notification dated 04.10.2018, which clearly defines that, if the leave is being sanctioned during the probation period, the probation period could be extended for the period, for which leave was sanctioned. In the present case, the child care leave was sanctioned to the petitioner on 14.01.2025, whereas her probation period was to be completed on 25.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of extension of her probation period for the period of 14.01.2025 to 25.02.2025, which comes about 42 days, for which she is entitled after rejoining her duties i.e. from 12.04.2025, which comes up to 24.05.2025. Even if her leave is 6 calculated generally, her probation period was to be over on 25.02.2025, she was on child care leave for 03 months and then also after adding the 03 months from the date of her completion of her probation period, her probation period is to be completed on 24.05.2025, therefore, in any case she cannot be treated on probation on the date of passing of the impugned transfer order dated 19.06.2025. 7. When the petitioner has not been treated as the teacher under the probation period, no benefit of clause 10(6) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 can be extended to her. It is for the authorities concerned to consider her representations in accordance with law, which she has already made before the authorities in between 02.06.2025 to 09.06.2025 (Annexure P/3). 8. 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 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, 7 SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the circular/instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 9. 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