1 2025:CGHC:35493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8346 of 2025 1 - Sarita Norgey W/o Shri Ghanshyam Norgey Aged About 39 Years Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School, Devkoingera, Block - Kanker, Distt - Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Kanker, Distt - Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Kanker, Distt - Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - President District Rationalization Committee Kanker, Distt - Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order of her posting dated 05.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Assistant SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.25 11:55:53 +0530 2 Teacher (LB) and was posted at Primary School, Devkongera, Dist- Kanker has been posted to Primary School, Hindur, Block- Koylibeda, Dist- Kanker under the rationalization instructions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Siksha Karmi Grade -III vide order dated 19.02.2009. Under the rationalization instructions, she has been declared surplus and posted at Primary School, Hindur vide order dated 05.06.2025. He would submit that there was no vacant post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Hindur. The petitioner is senior to other teachers in Devkongera school and she has wrongly been declared surplus under the rationalization of the teachers. After she was posted at Hindur school, she would again be declared surplus there. There is still vacant post in Primary School, Devkongera, Block- Kanker and the petitioner has not surplus there. The school where the petitioner is posted is about 170 KM away from the present place of her posting and is a dense naxalite affected area. The husband of the petitioner is a Head Constable and posted at CTJW College, Kanker and the petitioner may also be posted nearby Kanker. She opted for nearest school at the time of counseling but she has been posted at naxalite affected area which is not safe for her and her family. Therefore, the order of her posting dated 05.06.2025 may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the posting order of the petitioner is under the strict compliance of rationalization instructions. In view of the number of students in the school and setup of the school, the petitioner has been declared surplus there and she has been posted to Primary School, Hindur. She cannot claim that her husband is posted at Kanker and she may also be posted at nearby place of Kanker. It is for the authorities concerned to place the petitioner where the vacant post is available and considering the vacant 3 post and in compliance of the rationalization instructions, she has been posted to Primary School, Hindur. There may be some distance from her earlier place of posting but that distance cannot be a ground to quash the impugned order. The petitioner could not demonstrate any infirmity or arbitrariness in issuance of her posting order and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is Assistant Teacher (LB) and was posted at Primary School, Devkongera, Block- Kanker has been posted at Primary School, Hindur, Block- Koylibeda under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. She claimed that she is the senior teacher in the school and she opted for nearest school at the time of counseling and she has been posted far away from her present place of posting. The petitioner is claiming that she is the senior teacher in the school on the basis of her gradation list, whereas Clause 7 A (iv) of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that seniority of the teachers would be considered on the basis of their respective date of joining in the school. In view of the Clause 7 A (iv) of the rationalization instructions, the claim of the petitioner can be negated for the reason that the seniority cannot be counted from the gradation list for rationalization of the teachers and it is only considered on the basis of their date of joining in the school. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that her husband is Head Constable and posted at CTJW College, Kanker, would also be untenable as there is no consideration of the ground raised by the petitioner in the rationalization instructions that husband and wife may be posted at the same place, it may be ground under the transfer policy but there is no ground in the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner could not demonstrate any irregularity or violation of rationalization 4 instructions under which she has been declared surplus and posted to Primary School, Hindur. 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 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 sagrika