1 2025:CGHC:35004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8249 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rupa Manhar W/o Shri Ogya Prakesh Manhar Aged About 40 Years Address Palash Bihar A-8 Mahavir Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director Education Division Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Collector District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Dharsiva District Raipur C.G. 7 - Chandan Das Bagel W/o Name Of Father Is Not Known To The Petitioner Aged Agout 45, Years Presently Posted As Lecturer At Govt. High School Girod Block Dharsiva District Raipur C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 19:03:08 +0530 2 22/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is the Lecturer (Sanskrit) has been transferred from Govt. High School, Giraud, Block Dharsiwa to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kosrangi, Block Arang under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and he prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the merger and rationalization Policy/ Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/3) as illegal and void ab initio. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the letter dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent no.5 regarding the counseling for posting of the excess teachers under the garb of rationalization and guideline dated 02.08.2024 and also set aside/quash the posting dated 05/06/2025 (Annexure-P/2) issued after the counseling by respondent no.05 whereby petitioner has been posted Government Higher Secondary School, Kosrangi, Block-Arang. District- Raipur from his present place of working Government High School, Girod, Block- Dharsiva, District- Raipur. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work at present place of her posting i.e. Government High School, Girod, Block- Dharsiva, 3 District- Raipur. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favor of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Lecturer (Sanskrit) and was posted at Govt. High School, Giraud, Block Dharsiwa. She has been declared surplus by saying that there is no post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) is available at Govt. High School, Giraud. The petitioner is working there as Lecturer (Sanskrit) since 2016 and now she has been declared surplus on the ground that there was not post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). She made representations on 10.06.2025 and 17.06.2025 to the authorities concerned, but the same has not been considered till date. The petitioner is having personal difficulties and various family responsibilities, yet her representations have not been considered till date. The State Government has created the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools vide order dated 13.05.2008, and therefore, there must be post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Govt. High School, Giraud. Clause 10.3 of the Rationalization Instructions also provided that for posting of the Lecturers at High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools, their subjects are to be considered, yet without considering the subject of the petitioner, she has been transferred. Therefore, the impugned transfer order the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 4 instructions, would submit that in the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, though there is clause 10.3 that the subject of the Lecturers are to be considered while their posting, but considering the sanctioned post at High School, Giraud, the petitioner is declared as surplus and has been transferred. On 04.06.2025, she was called for counseling and after providing proper opportunity to her, she has been transferred after approval of the District Rationalization Committee. The transfer of the petitioner is under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned transfer order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Sanskrit) was posted at Govt. High School, Giraud and has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kosrangi under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner was called on 04.06.2025 in counseling vide notice dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and after considering the available sanctioned post, strength of the students in the school, the petitioner has been declared surplus there and she has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kosrangi after approval of District Rationalization Committee. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or mala fide on the part of the authorities concerned, which makes her entitled for the reliefs claimed. The ground raised by the petitioner that she has been transferred on 5 erroneous ground and she would fact family difficulties, would not be sufficient to quash the transfer order dated 05.06.2025. 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 ved