1 2025:CGHC:33127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7092 of 2025 1 - Bidhan Mandal S/o Late Hira Lal Mandal Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Teacher Lb Government Middle School Mohadi Block Tilda District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order of his posting dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.01 12:07:13 +0530 2 petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) (Arts), has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Mohandi, Block Tilda to Govt. Middle School, Tohda, Block Tilda, 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 set-aside/ quash the impugned transfer order Dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent District Education Officer, Raipur. 10.2 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Teacher (LB) (Arts) and presently posted at Govt. Middle School, Mohandi. He has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Tohda. Only 02 years and 05 months of his service is being left and at this fag end of his service, he may not be posted at any other place. Recently, the son of the petitioner namely Viplav Mandal has died on 13.03.2025 in a road accident and on this humanitarian ground also, he may not be posted somewhere else than the present place of posting, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Tohda. The grounds 3 raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition are out of the purview of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Challenging the posting order dated 05.06.2025, the petitioner may approach before the authorities concerned on humanitarian ground, who will consider the grievance of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner has claimed that he is posted as a Teacher (LB) (Arts) and only about 02 years and 05 months of his service is left. He cannot be posted to any other place at his fag end of service. Clause 10.7.1 provides that the teachers, who are having less than 02 years of service remaining, they would be called first for counseling, but the Rationalization Instructions is not provided that those teachers who are having less than 02 years of service, cannot be rationalized. Further, there is no provision in the Rationalization Instructions to consider the grievance of the teachers on humanitarian grounds. It is for the authorities concerned to consider the difficulties of the teachers and posted them in appropriate places. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided 4 under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. 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 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