1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7650 of 2025 1 - Goukaran Kodopi S/o Ujiyar Singh Kodopi Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Shahwada, Block Charama District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of School Education Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Collector Complex District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Deo Office District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Block Charama District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) President Of Block Level Committee Block Charama District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby he has been posted at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda under the Rationalization VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.25 18:09:35 +0530 2 Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “In light of the aforesaid is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and: a. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the transfer order dated 05.06.2025 being arbitrary, irrational and mala fide ("Annexure-P2"); b. Grant interim relief by staying the operation of the transfer/displacement of the Petitioner pending final disposal of this writ petition. c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher (LB) and presently posted at Primary School, Shahwada (Charama) has been declared surplus there and is posted at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda vide order dated 05.06.2025. Before the order dated 05.06.2025, he was not provided sufficient opportunity at the time of counseling to opt the convenient school. There were only two teachers at Primary School, Shahwada, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus. The impugned order of his posting is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner has made his representation to the authorities concerned on 03.07.2025, but the same has not been decided till date, and therefore, the impugned order of his posting is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 3 instructions, opposed and would submit that, the posting of the petitioner at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner has refused to opt the school at the time of counseling on 04.06.2025, and therefore, he was posted at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda. Considering the strength of students and teachers at Primary School, Shahwada, the petitioner was declared surplus. He could not demonstrate any infirmity in the order of his posting. He has already made his representation and it is for the authorities concerned to decide his representation in view of the provisions of the Rationalization Instructions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order of his posting dated 05.06.2025, (Annexure P/2), by which he is posted at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda. From perusal of the representation of the petitioner itself, it transpires that he refused to opt the school at the time of counseling. though he claimed that, at Primary School, Shahwada, only two teachers were there, but it is for the authorities concerned to consider the strength of the students and teachers in the school. After considering the same, the petitioner was posted at Primary School P.V. 107, Block Koyalibeda. Opportunity was provided to the petitioner to opt the school, but he refused for the same, and therefore, he has been posted, where the vacant post was available. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the order of his posting or violation of any condition of the Rationalization 4 Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement 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 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 dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved