1 2025:CGHC:36335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8004 of 2025 1 - Smt. Soniya Singh W/o Sushil Kumar Singh Aged About 52 Years Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher And Posted At Govt. Primary School - Kishunnagar, Block - Ambikapur, Distt - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Surguja (Ambikapur)/ Chairman Of District Level Rationalization Committee Distt - Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Ambikapur Distt - Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Ambikapur Distt - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. S. Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) by which she has been posted at Govt. Primary ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.23 20:00:26 +0530 2 School, Mahuapara (Chhermunda), Block Lundra, under the rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB), is presently posted at Govt. Primary School, Kishun Nagar and she has been posted to Govt. Primary School, Mahuapara (Chhermunda), Block Lundra, vide order dated 06.06.2025 under the rationalization instructions. There is a complete violation of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. Clause 7-A (3) of the rationalization instructions provided that there will be three teachers, including the Headmaster, when the number of students in the school is between 61 to 90. There are a total of 62 students in the schools where the petitioner is posted, and thus, the petitioner is not surplus in the schools, yet she has been declared surplus. The petitioner is senior to other teachers of the school, and her seniority has also not been considered while declaring her surplus, and she had been posted by the impugned order dated 06.06.2025. Raising her grievance, she made her representation on 12.06.2025, but the same has not been considered by the authorities, and therefore, she is challenging the order of her posting dated 06.06.2025 in the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that as per the instructions issued on 28.04.2025 by the State Government, two teachers are required where the number of students is 60, the Headmaster shall be exempted from their rationalization. The strength of the students in the school for the session 2024-2025 is 42, and therefore only two teachers, including the Headmaster, were required; and therefore, three teachers have been declared surplus from Govt. primary School Kishun Nagar, including the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming the strength of the school, which on 09.07.2025, i.e. after the passing of the order of posting of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no ground in the present writ 3 petition to challenge her posting order, 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 main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ is that the number of students in the schools is more than 60, and thereby three teachers were required, and thus the petitioner cannot be declared surplus at Primary School Kishun Nagar. The petitioner’s claim that the number of students is more than 60 based on document Annexure P/2, which was issued on 09.07.2025, in which it is clearly mentioned that the number of students is 62 in the school as on 08.07.2025, which is the date after the passing of the order of posting of the petitioner. From the instructions submitted by the respondent/State, it transpires that from the Sessions 2024-2025, the strength of the students in the schools was 42 and only two teachers, including the Headmaster, were required. Smt. Asha Yadav was the Headmaster and one Smt. Sunita Painkra, Assistant Teacher, joined the school on 30.06.2009 and the other three teachers, including the petitioner, have subsequently joined the school and thus Smt. Asha Yadav, being the Headmaster and Smt. Sunita Painkra, being the Senior Teacher in the school, cannot be declared surplus. However, the other junior teachers, including the petitioner, have been declared surplus and posted to other schools. This Court does not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition, as there is no ground or violation of any condition of rationalization instructions made out by the petitioner that warrants the interference of this Court. 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 4 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