1 2025:CGHC:41342-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 611 of 2025 1. Satya Prakash Pradhan S/o Shri Harvansh Lal Pradhan Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As Post - Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Pudu, Block-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Karra, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Anusuiya Pradhan W/o Satya Prakash Pradhan Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Post - Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Rainpur, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Karra, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Education Division - Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The Block Education Officer Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. The Principal Government Primary School, Pudu, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. The Principal Government Primary School, Rainpur, Block - Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.18 18:49:45 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6336 of 2025 (Satya Prakash Pradhan & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition instituted by the appellants/writ petitioners came to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants are husband and wife and were serving at Government Primary School, Pudu and Government Primary School, Rainpur, respectively. Pursuant to the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, they were declared surplus and consequently transferred. It is urged that in the preparation of the list of surplus teachers and in effecting their transfers, the mandatory stipulations contained in the said Instructions were not adhered to. 3 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been posted at different places, which has caused them severe hardship. Appellant No. 2 has been transferred about 30 kilometers away from her residence, where no proper transportation facility exists. The appellants have a minor child aged about eight years, and owing to the impugned transfers, they are likely to face grave difficulties. Despite the availability of vacancies in nearer schools, the appellants have not been accommodated there. Appellant No. 1 had also submitted a representation on 05.06.2025 ventilating his grievances, but the same has not been considered till date. On these grounds, it is contended that the transfer orders are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the impugned transfers are arbitrary and unreasonable, imposing undue hardship upon the appellants and their family, thereby infringing their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that transfer to distant places without regard to their familial responsibilities undermines their right to live with dignity and free from unnecessary hardship. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge, upon a holistic consideration of the record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted that the appellants, who were serving at Government Primary Schools, Pudu 4 and Rainpur, were declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions and transferred to Government Primary School, Lusda and Government Primary School, Peeparpara (Khaira), both situated within the same block. The Rationalization Instructions were duly adhered to, and the plea that husband and wife must necessarily be accommodated at the same place finds no support in the said Instructions. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned order as well as the materials available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellants, being teachers, were transferred vide order dated 04.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Clause 7-A of the said Instructions does not contemplate that husband and wife must be accommodated at the same or nearby station. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the impugned transfers are in contravention of any statutory provision or of the binding conditions of the said Instructions. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that it is a settled proposition of law that transfer is an incidence of service. Unless tainted by mala fides or shown to be in violation of statutory rules, the Court should not interfere in matters of transfer or posting, as such decisions lie squarely within the domain of the employer, being guided by public interest and administrative exigency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey, reported in (2009) 8 5 SCC 337; Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 212; and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, has consistently reiterated that interference by Courts in matters of transfer should be exercised sparingly and only when clear illegality or arbitrariness is established. 10. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the rival submissions and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no illegality, procedural irregularity, or jurisdictional error has been committed in dismissing the writ petition. The appellants have failed to establish any ground warranting interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to fail and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan