2025:CGHC:31891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7118 of 2025 Narsingh Shori S/o Shri Ramlal Shori Aged About 58 Years Occupation - Service Posted As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Rawas, Narhapur, Block - Narharpur, R/o Village - Salhebhat, Post - Sarona, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate First Floor, C Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Collector Kanker And President Of District Rationalization Committee Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Kanker/member Secretary District Rationalization Committee Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Narharpur District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Basant Uikey Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government Primary School, Rawas, Block Narharpur, Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging her transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P1), by which the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher, has been transferred from the Government Primary School, Rawas, Block-Narharpur, to the Government Primary School, Amatola, Block- Koyalibeda under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, and is claiming for the following reliefs: Wps 7118 of 2025 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records which relates to declaration of surplus and posting under rationalization policy in the Narharpur Block. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P1) and directed the respondent authorities to not disturb the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the directions of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 have not been followed in the process, as petitioner’s seniority in the school has been ignored. He is senior to respondent-6 yet he has been declared as surplus teacher, which is violation of Clause 7(A) of the Instructions. He also would submit that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by respondent-4, and therefore, the impugned order of transfer is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the pleadings of learned counsel for the petitioner, and submit that the document Annexure P3, by which the petitioner has been declared to be senior is incomplete document, which is not demonstrated as to from which register, the said document Annexure P3 has been obtained. Neither there is any name of School, nor it was signed by any authority. Likewise, there is no date Wps 7118 of 2025 3 mentioned in the representation of petitioner, and there is no acknowledgment with respect to submission of representation. In absence of any specific claim of the petitioner with respect to violation of any condition of the Rationalization Instructions, the impugned transfer order cannot be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner is questioning his transfer order dated 05.06.2025, showing that his seniority has been ignored, and he is senior to respondent-6, and further, that his representation submitted before respondent-4 has not been considered by the authority concerned. From perusal of document Annexure P3, though the name of the petitioner as well as respondent-6 is mentioned at Serial Number 5 and 6 respectively, and their date of joining has also been mentioned as 12.12.2010, 16.06.2017 and 25.03.2022, whereas, date of joining of respondent-6 has been mentioned as 01.04.2013 but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the correct date as to when he has joined in the School, as three dates have been shown in the said document. Likewise, there is no name of any school mentioned in the document, and the same has not been certified by any authority. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be the exact date of joining, or any authentic document with respect to seniority of the petitioner. On perusal of Annexure P4, representation of the petitioner, there is no date or any acknowledgment by any authority, to whom it has been submitted. Further, the petitioner could not demonstrate his case by filing any document in violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions, by which he has been declared as surplus staff. Wps 7118 of 2025 4 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 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 padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.07.15 11:01:51 +0530