1 2025:CGHC:33806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7260 of 2025 1 - Martang Singh Sahu S/o Raghunath Singh Sahu Aged About 42 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Middle School Mahuda (Patan) District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director Education Division Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer And Member Secretary District Level Rationalzation Committee Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - Krishna Raj Pandey S/o Shiv Kumar Pandey Working As Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Middle School, Mahuda (Patan) District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17-07-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the representation of the petitioner against his transfer order dated 07.06.2025 under the Rationalization instructions has been rejected by the authorities. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (Maths) (E-cadre), has been transferred from Middle School Mahuda, Distt. Durg to Govt. Middle School, Khara, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, under the Rationalization Instructions Dated 02.08.2024. 2. The State Government, vide its notification No.GENCOR-35010/1738/2025- GAD-5 dated 07-07-2025, constituted a Divisional Level Committee, headed by Divisional Commissioner of the concerned Division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representations of the teachers, but after passing of the order dated 26.06.2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedies before the said committee and argued the case on merits, therefore, the order has been passed on merits of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had challenged his transfer order dated 07.06.2025 in W.P.S. No. 4380/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of on 11.06.2025, directing the petitioner to move his fresh representation, and then the authorities shall decide the same within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the authorities have passed the order on 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) on the representation of the petitioner, and the same is rejected, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner, who is Teacher (Maths) (E-cadre), was posted at Middle School, Mahuda, and has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Khara, by the transfer order dated 07.06.2025, under the Rationalization Instruction dated 02.08.2024. The respondent No. 7 is junior to the petitioner, who joined the school on 17.02.2022, and he should be declared surplus. The petitioner has been declared surplus for the reason that the respondent No. 7 has filed 3 WPS No. 1019 of 2023 before this Court, in which an interim order has been passed in his favour, and therefore, the authorities have not declared him surplus, and in his place, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The provisions of Rationalization Instructions have not been followed and the entire vacant posts of Teacher available in the Durg District have not been disclosed at the time of counselling, the petitioner has also claimed that husband and wife should be posted at the same place which has also not been considered by the authorities and his representation has been rejected on 26.06.2025 without considering the grievance raised by the petitioner in his representation. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that, as per the strength of students in the school, i.e. 237 students, total 8 teachers are required there however 11 teachers were working, therefore 3 teachers including the petitioner have been declared surplus though another teacher was also declared as surplus but due to interim order passed in his favour in WPS No. 1019 of 2023 he could not be declared as surplus. There is an instruction through video conferencing that the teachers who have been granted interim orders by the Court against their transfer shall be exempted from Rationalization. Since the other Teacher, Krishna Raj Pandey, was also granted an interim order in WPS No.1019 of 2023, he was not declared surplus, and the petitioner has been declared surplus. The order dated 26.06.2025 is under strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions, and there is no infirmity in it. The petitioner has been rightly declared surplus, and his representation is dismissed by the authorities, which is justified, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is a senior Teacher in the school than the other teacher, Krishna Raj Pandey and instead thereof he 4 has been declared as surplus. From the order dated 26.06.2025, it transpires that there is an instruction on 12.05.2025 that the Teachers in whose favour any interim order against their transfer is passed by the Court, should be exempted from Rationalization. Therefore, looking to the number of students and the required teacher there, 3 Teachers have been declared surplus there, including the petitioner. From the entire material annexed with the petition, this court does not find any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer orders of the petitioner and rejection of his representation. The ground of posting of husband and wife at the same place is also not available to the petitioner as the same does not rescue the petitioner under the Rationalization Instructions Dated 02.08.2024. 8. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant 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 incident 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, 5 non-competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 9. 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 Aadil