1 2025:CGHC:36314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7307 of 2025 1 - Khem Chand Markhande S/o Tetaku Ram Markhande Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer, Subject English, Government Girls Education, Meregaon, Block Ambagharh Chowki, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer District- Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer Block- Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Principal Government Girls Education School, Meregaon, Block Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Principal Government High School, Nelsnar Block Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.29 12:32:12 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) and 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from the Girls Education Campus Ambagarh Chowki, to High School Nelasnaar, Bhairamgarh, Block Bijapur, under the rationalization instructions dated 02- 08-2024 and prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to set aside the Order No. /Yuktikaran/2025-25 dated 05.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 03, issued in violation with the rationalization policy and in effect retain the petitioner to work in the Respondent No. 05 School in interest of justice; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 24.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner's fresh representation had been rejected; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 12.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner is being transferred to Government High School, Nelsnar Block Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur i.e. Respondent No. 06 School. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. The State Government, vide its notification dated- 07.07.2025, constituted a District 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 3 24.06.2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue his 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 the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB), is posted at the Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki. He has been declared surplus there and has been transferred to High School Nelasnaar, Bhairamgarh, Block Bijapur. He would further submit that, at Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki, there are 245 students and he took more than 4 subject periods every day, yet he has been declared as surplus and has been transferred. From the time table of the school (Annexure P-8), it is clear that the petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day and therefore as per clause 7 (C)(1) of the rationalization instructions, if the Lecturers are taking less than 4 periods per day, the junior of them would be considered surplus whereas in the present case the petitioner is taking 4 period. He would further submit that the impugned transferred order is against the Rationalization Instructions. He would further submit that on 18-06-2025, this court passed the order in W.P.S. No. 4933/2025 directing the petitioner to move his fresh representation within 05 days, and the authorities concerned shall decide the representation within 07 days, but the representation of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions. Therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner as well as the rejection of his representation are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, opposes and submits that there are 139 students in the school and the petitioner has stated the total strength of the students from class 6th to 12th which is total 245 students but in the Higher Secondary School only 139 students are there and as per Clause 7(C)(3) of the rationalization instructions, there were 2 Lecturers and the petitioner being the junior, has been declared surplus. While considering the representation of the petitioner, it is also considered 4 that there is no teaching for more than 4 subject periods by the petitioner. The authorities have passed a reasoned order while considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process of Rationalization of the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day of the English subject in the school, and there are 245 students in the school; therefore, as per Clause 7 (C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions, he cannot be declared as surplus. From perusal of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5), it transpires that the strength of 245 students is the total strength of students from Class 6th to 12th. From the order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-6), the authorities have considered that in the school where the petitioner is posted, having 139 students, and he is a junior lecturer in the English subject in the school, and his subject period is not more than 4, therefore, he has been considered as surplus. Clause 7 (C)(1) and (3) provides that where the number of students is less and 2 Lecturers are posted for one subject, the junior of them would be declared as surplus. In the present case also the petitioner is junior, and his subject period is not more than 4, and therefore, there is no violation of Rationalization Instructions. The authorities have rightly considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same. His representation has been rejected by the authorities concerned, and the petitioner does not want to pursue further representation before the Divisional committee. Therefore, this court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the impugned transfer order or rejection of the representation of the petitioner. Under the Rationalization instruction, he has rightly been considered surplus and transferred. 5 7. 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, 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. 8. 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 sagrika