1 2025:CGHC:33805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7257 of 2025 1 - Lalit Kumar Maravi S/o Ishwar Singh Maravi Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government Primary School Kaushalpur, Block- Premnagar, District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 4957333 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Savita Sahu Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government Primary School Kaushalpur, Block- Premnagar, District- Surajpur - 4957333 (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Collector Collector Complex, District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) 4 - District Education Officer Deo Office, District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Block Education Officer Block- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) President Of Block Level Committee Block- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.22 11:48:56 +0530 2 an Assistant Teacher (T) and presently working at Primary School, Bhagwanpara (Premnagar), has been posted to Primary School, Sohargadai (Premnagar) under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “In light of the aforesaid is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and: a. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the transfer order dated 04.06.2025 being arbitrary, irrational and mala fide ("Annexure-P2"). b. Grant interim relief by staying the operation of the transfer/displacement of the Petitioner pending final disposal of this writ petition. c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher (T) and posted at Primary School, Bhagwanpara. The setup fixed in the year 2008 is applicable to the school and as per the setup, two teachers are required up to 40 students and 03 teachers up to 80 students, but under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, three teachers are required, where the students are more than 60. No other teachers were to be posted yet other teachers have been posted in the school and the petitioner has been declared surplus. The impugned order and rationalization of the petitioner is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and no proper opportunity was provided to him at the time of counseling, therefore, the order dated 04.06.2025 is liable to be quashed. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the posting of the petitioner is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is no violation of any procedure prescribed for the same. Considering the data available to the respondent authorities, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The petitioner could not demonstrate any violation of condition of the Rationalization Instructions, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 on the ground that the setup of the year 2008 is applicable to the school and as per the setup, no other teachers were required in the school, yet the other teachers have been appointed in the school, and the petitioner has been declared surplus. The appointment of other teachers in the school is based on the strength of the students and from the document (Annexure P/4), it transpires that one Ms. Savita Sahu has been appointed and posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bhagwanpara vide order dated 26.03.2025, and she joined on 09.04.2025. The petitioner could not demonstrate by filing sufficient document about strength of the students in the school and the requirement of the teachers there, and also the nature of appointment of Ms. Savita Sahu. No other ground has been raised by the petitioner during the course of hearing. This Court does not find sufficient material to quash the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/2). 4 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided 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 dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved