1 2025:CGHC:36811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8409 of 2025 1 - Mukund Singh Thakur S/o Shri Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 50 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Kairaguda, Block- Baster, District- Jagdalpur At Baster C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director, Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director, Education Division - Baster, District- Jagdalpur At Baster C.G. 4 - The District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, Baster, District- Jagdalpur At Baster C.G. 5 - The Block Education Officer, Baster, District- Jagdalpur At Baster C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 19.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is a teacher (LB)(Maths) was SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.23 10:38:14 +0530 2 posted at Middle School, Kairaguda, Block- Bastar has been posed at Govt. Middle School, Kukanar, Block – Chhindgarh, Dist- Sukma by the impugned order under the rationalization instructions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Teacher (LB)(Maths) and he has been declared surplus at Middle School, Kairaguda and has been posted at Middle School Kukanar, Block – Chhindgarh, Dist- Sukma under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. On the wrong information that another teacher Mr. Lalman Dhruv has been posted in the school since 2017, he has been declared surplus whereas, there is no teacher in the name of Mr. Lalman Dhruv posted in the school. By the posting of the petitioner, there would be less teacher at Middle School, Kairaguda which affecting the teaching in that school and the posting of the petitioner in the garb of rationalization is against the setup of the school. The petitioner is suffering from heart disease and his treatment is continued at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, therefore, the order of posting dated 19.06.2025 may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that as per the setup and strength of students in the school and required teacher in the school under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner is declared surplus in the school as two other teachers were on probation and as per Clause 10.6 of the rationalization instructions, the teachers who are on probation cannot be rationalized and therefore, being a junior most teacher, the petitioner has been declared surplus. There is no legally admissible ground available to the petitioner to challenge the order of posting of the petitioner, therefore, no ground is available to the 3 petitioner in the present 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 the Teacher (LB) (Maths) has been posted at Middle School Kukanar from Middle School, Kairaguda by the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1). From the document annexed with the petition at Page No. 23, it transpires that there are 05 teachers in the school, out of which, Smt Meenakshi Markam and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar are on probation and one Smt. Indu Kujur have been declared surplus and posted to some other schools. From perusal of Clause 10.6 of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, it transpires that the teachers who are on probation cannot be rationalized and they can be posted under the rationalization instructions only after completion of their probation period. The posting of the petitioner to Middle School, Kukanar appears to be strictly under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in his posting order. 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 4 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