1 2025:CGHC:35501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8065 of 2025 1 - Binesh Kumar Nag S/o Chaitu Ram Nag Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Teacher (Lb) At Government Middle School Devgaon, Block - Pharasgaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Lok Shikshan, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector And Chairman District Level Rationalization Committee, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block - Pharasgaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.23 20:00:26 +0530 2 (LB) (Maths), was posted at Middle School Devgaon, Block Pharasgaon, District- Kondagaon, has been posted at Middle School Badesatti, Block Sukma, under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a complete violation of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The subject of the petitioner, in which he is teaching in the school, has not been considered at the time of his rationalization. There is a complete violation of Clauses 10.5 and 10.6 of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, and the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2025 has not been considered by the authorities. Had the counselling been done subject-wise, the petitioner would have been posted in the District itself, where he is presently posted, and there is material irregularity in counselling for rationalization of the teachers; therefore, the impugned order of the posting of the petitioner on 19.06.2025 is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, opposes and submitted that there is no violation of any condition of rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner raised a general and common ground that there is a violation of rationalization instruction. However, what provisions that have been violated have not been disclosed. Even the petitioner could not demonstrate any ground with respect to his subject, so that his grievance could be considered. There is no ground in the present writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) (Maths), and has been posted at Middle School, Devgaon, is now being posted at Middle School, Badesatti, vide order dated 19.06.2025 under the rationalization of the teachers. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the District Level counselling was not done subject-wise, whereas the Divisional Level Counselling was done 3 subject-wise. It is very difficult to hold that the District Level Counselling was not done subject-wise, or there is any violation of the conditions of the counselling as laid in the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. For want of sufficient material with respect to the mode and manner of counselling held at District Level and Divisional Level, it cannot be held that there is a violation of rationalization instructions or irregularities committed by the authorities during the counselling. 6. 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. 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 Alok