1 2025:CGHC:30811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7134 of 2025 1 - Smita Patel W/o Omprakash Patel Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Teacher (L.B.) At Government Middle School Juganikalar, Block - Pharasgaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Lok Shikshan, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Level Rationalization Committee, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Block- Pharasgaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.08 11:05:24 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set- aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent department. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to continue their service at their presently working school. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is working as Teacher (LB) have been transferred from Middle School, Juganikalar, Block- Pharasgaon, Dist- Kondagaon to Middle School- Bhaisaboad, Block- Farasgaon, Dist- Kondagaon vide order dated 04.06.2025 under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Clause 5 & 6 of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 is violated. Clause 5 of the rationalization instructions provides that the teacher who is appointed under handicap quota is to be treated as junior than other teachers and Clause-6 of the said instructions provides that the teachers who are in probation shall not be counted as surplus. Yet the petitioner has been declared as surplus teacher and has been transferred to Middle School Baisaboad, Block- Farasgaon. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that after following the rationalization instructions, the petitioner has been declared as surplus and has been transferred, in which there is no illegality. 4. When the specific query was raised from the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner about the rationalization instructions and representation of the petitioner, if any, she could not demonstrate any violation of the rationalization instructions and could not produce any representation which has been filed by her if any. No any representation instructions or representation has been annexed with the petition. The petitioner could not demonstrate any irregularity in rationalization or her transfer. 5. 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. SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the submissions made by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 6. 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 orders are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika