1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6801 of 2025 1 - Smt. Suman Mishra D/o Shri Gyan Datt Mishra Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Service (Assistant Teacher L.B.) Posted At Primary School Chhendi Para, Bastar Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.) R/o Vrindawan Colony, Baliram Kashyap Ward No. 43 District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Directorate Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Cum Chairman Of Rationalization Committee Distt. Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Cum Secretary Of The Rationalization Committee Distt. Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Bastar District Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:55 +0530 2 01/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (T) has been transferred from Primary School, Chhendipara, Block Bastar to Ashram School, Bhheja, Block Lohandiguda 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 issue a writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 05/06/2025 (Annexure P/1) as well as the declaration of the petitioner as surplus teacher with further direction to allow the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting that is Primary School, Chhendi Para, Bastar (C.G.). 10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal and proper adjudication of the matter. 10.3 That, a writ/command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner by speaking order in consonance with the rationalization policy with time stipulation. 10.4 That, any other relief which is deemed fit and proper under the present facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner along-with cost 3 of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Teacher (T) at Primary School, Chhendipara, Block Bastar. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and she has been transferred. She was not provided sufficient opportunity to opt the school in counseling and no sufficient time to travel up to the place of counseling was given. He would further submit that the Rationalization Instructions have not been followed in its true sense and the authorities have acted in most arbitrary manner in declaring the petitioner as surplus and posted her in a remote area. She being a lady, it is very difficult for her to travel up to more than 60 KMs away from her present place of posting. The date of counseling was fixed on 03.06.2025 and on the same day, she was being communicated about the same. She was at Ayodhya on that day and could not reach by any means to appear in the counseling. He would further submit that the petitioner has joined in the school on 06.01.2021, whereas the other Assistant Teachers have joined on 13.06.2022 and 14.10.2022, and thus the petitioner is the senior than the other Teachers, yet she has been declared as surplus. She has moved her representation on 17.06.2025, but till date her representation has not been considered. There was lack of transparency in display of the school and declaring the Teachers as surplus, and therefore, the impugned transfer order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 4 instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Chhendipara, Block Bastar and under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, she was declared surplus there and has been transferred to Ashram Shala, Bhheja, Block Lohandiguda. Though the petitioner has filed the document of transfer orders of other Teachers of the school on 13.06.2022 and 14.10.2022, but it would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner has wrongly been declared as surplus in absence of sufficient document. He would further submit that, before the counseling, on 30.05.2025, the notice has been published for counseling held on 03.06.2025 and sufficient time was provided to the Teachers. The petitioner could not demonstrate any ground or violation of the Rationalization Instructions; therefore, no relief can be granted to her in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (T) is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Teacher in the school and no proper opportunity to opt other nearest school has been provided to her, because on the same day, she came to know about the counseling and she was at her ancestral house at village Ayodhya for her treatment. From the document (Annexure P/5), it appears that, the notice for counseling on 03.06.2025 has already been issued on 30.05.2025, and therefore, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner to appear in the counseling, as she herself has stated that she had gone to her ancestral house at village 5 Ayodhya for her treatment. Further, the petitioner could not demonstrate any clauses of the Rationalization Instructions and her seniority has not been considered. Though she annexed the transfer orders of other Teachers in the school, but what was the current setup of the school, their subjects, have not been disclosed by the petitioner. From her representation, it appears that she raised her objection only that, she was not provided proper opportunity to appear in counseling, as she was at village Ayodhya. The petitioner could not demonstrate any material irregularity or arbitrariness in Rationalization of the Teachers. The allegation of not providing the sufficient opportunity to appear in counseling, would also not found sufficient to interfere with the impugned transfer order, as she herself has stated that, she had gone to village Ayodhya for her treatment, but when she had gone to Ayodhya, what is the distance and what treatment she had taken, there is no material about the same produced by the petitioner in the petition. 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 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 6 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