1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6733 of 2025 1 - Vrish Bhanu Joshi S/o Shri Vishwanath Joshi Aged About 41 Years Teacher (L.B.) (Mathematics), Posted At Middle School Badanji Block- Lohandiguda, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya 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 Uktiuktkaran Samiti, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Joint Director Education Division Bastar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Lakhmi Kashyap Occupation- Teacher Posted At Government High School Badanji, Working At Middle School Badanji Block- Lohandiguda, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.17 10:58:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 19-06-2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the petitioner has been transferred from Middle School, Badanji, Block Lohadiguda (Bastar), to Middle School, Dhamankota, Block Chhindgarh, District Sukma, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertains to case of the petitioner, in original from the Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No.4, as also, the record pertains to Counselling. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order bearing No./Est-2/ Ukti.U./2025-26/1792, Jagdalpur dated 19.06.2025 (Ann.-P/1) and allow the petitioner to continue at Middle School Badanji Block-Lohandiguda, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to Respondent No.4 to examine the case of the petitioner particularly in the light of Ann.-P/5 and Ann.- P/9, according to that petitioner is not Atishesh Teacher at the present place of posting. 10.4 That, in the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to consider the para 9.7 of the Petition for further 3 posting. 10.5 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 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 Teacher (LB) and was posted at Middle School, Badanji (Bastar). He had joined his service on 14-02-2011 and vide order dated 27-01-2020, his services have been merged with the School Education Department. thereafter he has been posted at Government Middle School, Badanji, Block Lohadiguda, District Bastar, vide order dated 24-01-2022. The Respondent No. 5 is appointed on the post of Teacher and is posted on probation at Government High School, Badanji, Block Lohadiguda, vide order dated 02-09-2023. In the divisional level gradation list issued by the Respondent No. 4 on 10-01-2025, the petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 5 have been considered as Teacher posted at Government Middle School, Badanji, Block Lohadiguda. He would further submit that Since, there was no vacant post of Teacher at High School, Badanji, she was joined at Middle School, Badanji, as a Teacher (English). In the setup of the schools, there should be one teacher in every subject in English, Hindi/Sanskrit, Maths, Science and Arts, and in all the subjects, there is no vacant post. At the time of Rationalization, the petitioner, who is a Maths teacher, has been declared as surplus against the Respondent 4 No. 5, who has joined after the petitioner against the vacant post of Teacher (English) and is junior. The petitioner moved his representation on 13-06-2025 but his representation has not been considered by the authorities till date. Therefore, the Rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer order is erroneous and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Middle School, Badanji, and the Respondent No. 5 is also posted as Middle School, Badanji. At the time of appointment of the Respondent No. 5, there was no vacant post of Teacher at High School, Badanji, she was posted at Middle School, Badanji. The petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 are the Maths Teacher. Though by the notification dated 04-05-2023, the appointment of teacher for particular subject is omitted, the Respondent No. 5 is appointed as Teacher and had joined at Middle School, Badanji, on 12-09-2023. The Respondent No. 5 is on probation. The petitioner had joined at Middle School, Badanji on 01-02-2022. Although, the Respondent No. 5 was junior to the petitioner, but she is on probation and as per clause 10.6 of the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, the Teachers, who are on probation, shall be exempted from Rationalization, therefore, the Respondent No. 5 is not considered for Rationalization and the petitioner, being junior most teacher in the school, declared as surplus and has been transferred. he would also submit that on 10-07-2025, the petitioner has been relieved from Middle School, Badanji, for his 5 transferred place of posting. 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 Teacher (LB), has been transferred to the Government Middle School, Dhamankota, Block Chhindgarh, District Sukma, vide transfer order dated 19-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. After merger of the petitioner in the School Education Department, he had joined at Government Middle School, Badanji, on 01-02-2022 in compliance of the order dated 24-01-2022. The Respondent No. 5 had also joined there at Government Middle School, Badanji on 12-09-2023, in compliance of her appointment order dated 02-09-2023. The Respondent No. 5 is appointed on 02-09-2023 on probation for 03 years from the date of her joining. Thus, the Respondent No. 5 is posted at Government Middle School, Badanji, on probation and she is exempted from Rationalization as provided in clause 10.6 of the Rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner is the junior most amongst other teachers in the school and therefore, he has been declared as surplus and has been transferred. This court does not find any infirmity in the Rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer order dated 6 19-06-2025, 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 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