1 2025:CGHC:35778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8439 of 2025 1 - Smt. Laxmi Mandal W/o Late Mrinal Kanti Mandal Aged About 57 Years R/o Dharampura No. 01 Near Methodist Charch Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward No. 38 Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Lok Shikshan, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector And Chairman District Level Rationalization Committee, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Ratinalization Committee, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.23 10:38:16 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 08.06.2025, whereby the petitioner who is a teacher (LB), T-Cadre was posted at Middle School, Kangoli, Block- Jagdalpur, Dist- Bastar has been posted at Middle School, Koleng, Block- Darbha, Dist- Bastar by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is presently posted as Teacher (LB) at Middle School, Kangoli, is posted to Middle School, Koleng by the impugned order of posting under the rationalization instructions. The rationalization of the petitioner is against the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 and there is no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner at the time of counseling. During the counseling, the list of vacant schools from all the blocks in the districts were not displayed and the petitioner was deprived to opt the convenient school. The petitioner is suffering from Cervical pain, Thyroid and Waist pain and he has to go to Vishakhapatanam for her treatment. The place of posting is a remote area and no regular treatment is available to that place, therefore, the order of her posting may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that during the rationalization, the petitioner is declared surplus at Middle School, Kangoli and she has been posted at Middle School, Koleng which is under the strict compliance of rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. Though, the petitioner claims that she is suffering from various health problems but no 3 documents have been annexed by her in the present writ petition to substantiate her claim merely saying that she was not provided proper opportunity at the time of counseling is not sufficient to quash the impugned order dated 08.06.2025. At the time of counseling, the petitioner has not raised any objection and it is only after passing of the order dated 08.06.2025, she made representation on 12.06.2025. There is no irregularity or arbitrariness in passing of the impugned order and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition 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 petitioner, who is presently posted as Teacher (LB) and posted at Middle School, Kangoli has been posted at Middle School, Koleng by the impugned order dated 08.06.2025. The claim of the petitioner is that she was not provided sufficient opportunity at the time of counseling and she was deprived to opt the convenient school. However, from the representation made by her dated 12.06.2025, it does not appear that she was not provided sufficient opportunity at the time of counseling. In the representation, she mainly raises the ground of her ailment and prayed for recalling of the order dated 08.06.2025. The rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 provided for rationalization of the teachers on the basis of physical status of the schools, strength of the students as well as teachers posted under the setup of the schools. The ailment of the teachers and and there place of posting are to be considered by the authorities concerned, but the impugned order of posting cannot be quashed by this Court on that ground alone. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable 4 infirmities or arbitrariness in the order dated 08.06.2025 by which she has been posted to Middle School, Koleng. 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