1 2025:CGHC:44362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8521 of 2025 1 - Poonam Bariyar W/o Shri Pradeep Ray Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Lecturer, R/o Imlipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary District Rationalisation Committee, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand (Bilha), District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 01-09-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for the entire records of the case pertaining to the case of the Petitioner. 10.2 Issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the appropriate nature Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.03 18:56:54 +0530 2 setting aside the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P/3) issued by Respondent No. 2; 10.3 Issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the appropriate nature setting aside the order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by Respondent No. 5 and direct the respondent authorities to place the Petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Biology) at Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand (Bilha). 10.4 Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents, in interest of justice.” 2. This is second round of litigation. Against the order dated 04-06-2025 the petitioner had filed WPS No.6202/2025 which is disposed of on 25-06-2025 directing the petitioner make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and then the said committee was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame. In compliance of the order dated 25-06-2025 the petitioner made her representation on 30-06-2025 and the said representation of the petitioner has been decided on 02-07-2025 rejecting he representation. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition who is a Lecturer (Biology) was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School Kududand and has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School Loharshi (Son) vide order dated 04-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions, 2024. Pursuant to the order dated 04-06-2025 she has been relieved from the school on 10-06-2025. The petitioner had challenged the said order of her posting on the ground that the other lecturer (Biology) in Govt. Higher 3 Secondary School Kududand is going to be retired in the month of January, 2026 and the post shall be vacant there after her retirement and the petitioner may be adjusted in her place. He would further submit that the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 has not been followed and in the gradation list her name is missing, yet she has been declared surplus from Govt. Higher Secondary School Kududand. The District Level Rationalization Committee has passed the order on the representation of the petitioner in mechanical manner without considering the grievance raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of her posting passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the order of posting and order dated 02-07-025 passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee is strictly in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions. Vacancy of the post in view of the retirement of one another lecturer (Biology) would not give any right to the petitioner to be remain posted at the same place at present. Presently and admittedly the petitioner is junior to other lecturer who is posted as lecturer (Biology) in the Govt. Higher Secondary School Kududand and in view of the strength of the student in the school she has been declared surplus and posted under the Rationalization Instructions, in which there is no infirmity or arbitrariness and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 6. Undisputedly the petitioner is junior to other lecturers at Govt. Higher Secondary School Kududand. The said lecturer (Biology) is going to retire in the month of January, 2026 the claim of the petitioner that other lecturer Smt. Sapana Dubey is going to be retired in the month of January, 2026 cannot be a ground to quash the order impugned which is her posting order dated 04- 4 06-2025 while considering the representation of the petitioner, the District Level Rationalization Committee has observed following in the order dated 02-07-2025 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “1- ;kfpdkdrkZ Jhefr iwue cfj;kj O;k[;krk ;qfDr;qDrdj.k ds iwoZ 'kkldh; m0e0’kk0 dqnqn.M fcykliqj fodkl[k.M fcYgk ftyk fcykliqj esa inLFk Fkh A ;kfpdkdrkZ dk laLFkk es dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnukad 14-08-2017 gSA 2- laLFkk ds vfHkys[kksa ,oa izkpk;Z }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh ds ijh{k.k ls Kkr gksrk gS fd l= 2024&25 esa laLFkk dh ntZ la[;k 125 gS] ;kfpdkdrkZ dk fo"k; tho foKku gS] laLFkk esa thofoKku fo"k; ds nks O;k[;krk dk;Zjr gSaA laLFkk esa dk;Zjr vU; O;k[;krk Jhefr liuk nqcs dk laLFkk esa dk;ZHkkj fnukad 15-07-2010 gSA laLFkk esa d{kk uoeha ls ckjgoha rd foKku ,oa tho foKku fo"k; ds pkj dky[k.M gh lapkfyr FkkA 6- “;qfDr;qDrdj.k funsZ’k dh dafMdk lkr “vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa ds fpUgkadu dh izfdz;k” dh mi dafMdk C “ gkbZ ,oa gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwyksa ” ds fcanq dzekad 01 “gkbZ@gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy esa tgka ntZ la[;k cgqr de gS ogka ,d gh fo"k; ds nks O;k[;krk dk;Zjr gSa ¼izfr O;k[;krk v/;kiu pkj dky[k.M ls de½ rks muesa ls dfu"B vfr’ks"k gksxk” ds vuqlkj gksus ds dkj.k ,d gh f’k{kd dks j[kus dk izko/kku gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ dk laLFkk esa thofoKku fo"k; esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnukad ds vk/kkj ij dfu"B gksus ds dkj.k ;kfpdkdrkZ dk dk;kZy;hu vfr’ks"k lwph esa gksuk rFkk lacaf/kr dk ;qfDr;qDrdj.k fd;k tkuk nks"kiw.kZ ugh gSA” 7. The petitioner could not demonstrate any substantial ground to interfere with her posting order and the order dated 02-07-2025 passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee. Even otherwise, 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 5 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. 8. 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 Aadil