1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6504 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pushpa Kumari W/o Ajay Kumar Aged About 39 Years Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Government Primary School, Charrapara, Block Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Public Instruction Directorate, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector And Chairman District Level Rationalization Committee, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Block Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:58:10 +0530 2 07/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/3) and the order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/6), whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Primary School, Charrapara, Block Podi-Uproda to Primary School, Kudri, Block Podi- Uproda under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her representation has been rejected by the District Rationalization Committee. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 31.05.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4354 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Rationalization Committee, who shall take a decision in accordance with law, in objective manner. In compliance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the District Rationalization Committee on 19.06.2025, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the District Rationalization Committee has not considered the claim of the petitioner in its true perspective. The entire schools of teacherless or single teacher have not been disclosed at the time of counseling and the similarly situated other employees Smt. Urmila Tiwari and Smt. Kiran Kashyap have been posted vide order dated 17.06.2025 in the school which are not shown in the list. The petitioner was not provided 3 proper opportunity at the time of counseling, as she was suffering from ailment and could not appeared in counseling on 31.05.2025, and thereby the petitioner was allotted the school against her convenience. There is complete violation of 10.1 and 10.4 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is a distance of more than 60 KMs from the present place of her posting to her transferred place. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected mechanically and therefore; the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Charrapara, Block Podi-Uproda and under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, she was declared surplus there and has been transferred to Primary School, Kudri, Block Podi- Uproda. At the time of counseling, she was not appeared and therefore, after selection of the schools by the teachers who were present, the teachers who were absent have been allotted to the remaining schools and thereby the petitioner was allotted the Primary School, Kudri. The ground raised by the petitioner is misconceived as all the teacherless and single teacher schools have been displayed at the time of counseling and it is the petitioner herself, who had not appeared in counseling. The District Rationalization Committee after hearing the petitioner, passed the order on 19.06.2025, which is justified and needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4 6. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Teacher in the school and she has not been provided property opportunity to opt the schools at the time of counseling as she could not appeared due to her ailment. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner was directed to make her representation before the District Rationalization Committee and in pursuance thereof, she has moved her representation on 16.06.2025 raising her grievances that all the schools either teacherless or single teacher have not been displayed at the time of counseling. She claimed in her representation that the Primary School, Pachbhaiyapara is a single teacher school and she may be posted there. From perusal of the order dated 19.06.2025, it transpires that the petitioner was appeared before the District Rationalization Committee and after hearing her the committee has decided that the petitioner was not appeared in the counseling and therefore, she has been allotted to the remaining schools and has been posted at Kudri. The Rationalization and transfer of the teachers is in the administrative exigency and interest of the students. It has also been observed in the order that the grounds, which are raised by the petitioner is not available to her under the Rationalization process and thereby rejected the representation of the petitioner. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 or the transfer order dated 31.05.2025. 7. 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 5 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, 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. 8. 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