1 2025:CGHC:38043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8633 of 2025 1 - Goutam Prasad Ratre S/o Shyam Lal Ratre Aged About 51 Years Working As Teacher (Lb) And Posted At Govt. Girls Middle School Utarada, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector And President District Level Rationalization Committee Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Block Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Arvind Kumar Paigore Working As Teacher (Lb) And Posted At Govt. Girls Middle School Utarada, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01-08-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.04 10:52:15 +0530 2 appropriate writ and quash the impugned transfer order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent No. 3 which is arising out of order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) by passed Respondent No. 4, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a mandamus directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the present place of posting, in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Teacher and posted at Girls Middle School,Utarda, Block Pali and under the rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024, he has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Merai, Block Podi-Uproda by the impugned order posting dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1). He would further submit that earlier the Respondent No. 6 was declared surplus at Girls Middle School, Utarda and was posted at Baira, Block- Podi-Uproda who had challenged his posting order before this Court in WPS No. 4702/2025 which was disposed of on 16/06/2025 directing the Respondent No. 6 to make fresh representation before the District Rationalization Committee and the Committee shall consider his representation in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame. Pursuant to the order dated 16/06/2025, the respondent/ authorities have considered the representation of the Respondent No. 6 and his posting order dated 03.06.2025 has been cancelled and now the petitioner has been declared surplus on Girls Middle School, Utarda and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Marai, Block- Podi-Uproda. He would further submit that the petitioner is the Teacher (Maths0 and as the rotation prescribed in Clause- 7 (B)(iv) of the Rationalization Instruction dated 02/08/2024, the petitioner cannot be declared surplus as he is teaching Maths subject and as per the setup of the school, only one teacher i.e. petitioner is posted at Girls 3 Middle School, Utarda. He would further submit that the petitioner has wrongly being considered as Teacher (Arts) and to accommodate the Respondent No. 6, he has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Merai, Block- Podi-Uproda. The petitioner apprehended that he may be declared surplus in place of Respondent No. 6 and may be posted in any other place, he has moved his representation on 01.07.2025 before the authorities concerned but without considering his representation, his posting order has been issued by which he has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Merai, Block- Podi-Uproda which is against the Rationalization Instruction and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instruction, would submit that the Respondent No. 6 was earlier considered as Teacher (Arts) and since, he was junior to other teachers in school, he was declared surplus and has been posted to Govt. Middle School, Baira, Dist- Podi-Uproda. However, when he challenged his posting order in the WPS No. 4702/2025, his writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent/ authorities to consider his representation in accordance with law and thereafter, while examining the records of the Respondent No. 6, it transpires that he is being wrongly considered surplus teacher as he is the Teacher (Science) and therefore, his posting order dated 03.06.2025 is cancelled and since, the petitioner is surplus teacher in Arts subject, he has been declared surplus and has been posted to Govt. Middle School, Merai. He would further submit that, though, the Head Master of the school is also the Arts subject and he is junior, but since, he is working as Head Master of the school, he has not been considered as surplus teacher and the petitioner has been delcared surplus and has been posted. In Govt. Girls Middle School, Utrada, there are 59 students and 5 teachers were posted, whereas, as per the strength of the school, only 04 teacher including the Head Master is required. He would further submit that as per Clause 7 (B)(ii) of the Rationalization Instruction, 4 the subject of the Head Master is also to be considered while rationalizing the other teachers in the school and therefore, the rationalization and posting of the petitioner at Govt. Middle School, Merai is justified and there is no illegality and infirmity in his posting order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is working as Teacher has claimed that he has wrongly been posted at Govt. Middle School, Merai, only to accommodate the Respondent No. 6 as the same place. From perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2), it transpires that, although, the Respondent No. 6 was earlier declared surplus and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Baira, but while considering his representation, the mistake committed by the authorities was detected and thereafter, he has been considered for his subject of science and thereafter, the petitioner has been declared surplus in Arts subject as the another teacher available in school for Arts subject who is Head Master, cannot be declared surplus. Considering the entire process adopted by the Respondent/ authorities by declaring the petitioner as surplus teacher, I do not find any palpable infirmity which makes the petitioner entitled for indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned order of his posting dated 17.07.2025. The petitioner could not demonstrate any admissible ground to consider this case for quashing of the impugned 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 5 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. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 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