1 2025:CGHC:34718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7882 of 2025 1 - Bhajan Lal Kurre S/o Shri Kumar Lal Kurre, Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Government Primary School Khairpali, Block And Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, School Education Department, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector-Cum-President Of The District Rationalization Committee, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer-Cum-Member Secretary Of The District Rationalization Committee, Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Principal/ Head Master, Government Primary School Khairpali, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - Principal/ Head Master, Government Primary School Kataipali D, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:28:23 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the orders Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3, whereby the petitioner's services have been transferred from the Govt. Primary School, Khairpali, Block Kharsia, to Govt. Primary School, Kataipali (D), Block Dharamjaigarh, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records of the case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order Annexure P-1, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned list Annexure P-2, so far as it relates to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been classified as surplus, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order Annexure P-3 whereby the petitioner's representation is shown to have been rejected, so far as it relates to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the further consequential relieving order (if any) passed against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.6 That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this 3 Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner against the respondents including the costs of the petition under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The State Government, vide its notification No. GENCOR-35010/1738/ 2025-GAD-5, 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 20-06-2025, 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 the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB), is posted at Govt. Primary School, Khairpali, Block Kharsia. He has been declared surplus there and has been transferred to Govt. Primary School, Kataipali (D), Block Dharamjaigarh. There were 4 teachers working out of which one is the headmaster and one is appointed under the physically handicapped quota. The remaining two teachers, including the petitioner, have been declared surplus. He would further submit that the headmaster is retiring on 30-06-2025 and one post is still vacant there; therefore, the petitioner may not be considered as surplus. He would further submit that on 23-06-2025, this court passed the order in W.P.S. No. 5617/2025 directing the petitioner to move his fresh representation within 05 days and the authorities concerned shall decide the 4 representation within 07 days, thereby, on the date of consideration of his representation, the headmaster has already retired on 30-06-2025 and the post is vacant, yet the petitioner has not been considered there. 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 were 4 teachers at Govt. Primary School, Khairpali, out of which one is the headmaster and the other is appointed under the Physically handicapped quota. Therefore, they cannot be declared surplus under the Rationalization instructions and only 02 teachers were required upon 48 students in the school. Subsequent vacancy on retirement of the headmaster does not entitle the petitioner to be considered there, after transferring him to another place. It is for the authorities concerned to fill up the vacant post under the relevant rules and circulars of the State Government. 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 headmaster of the school is retired on 30-06-2025, and the petitioner may be considered in his place and should be posted there. From perusal of the order of transfer of the petitioner, it transpires that he has already been 5 transferred on 03-06-2025, and on that day, there was no vacancy in the school. Subsequent vacancy of the post does not give him any right to remain there. His representation has been rejected by the authorities concerned, and the petitioner does not want to pursue further representation before the 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. 7. 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 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 6 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 ved