1 2025:CGHC:47953-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 674 of 2025 Shashi Shrivastava W/o Vijay Narayana Shrivastava, aged about 54 years, presently posted as Lecturer (Chemistry) at Govt. High School Ajrima Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction (DPI) through its Director Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director School Education, Division Surguja (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Nishu Gupta, presently posted as Lecturer Swami Atmanand Nagar Nigam School Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .0 9 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. This is an intra-Court appeal filed against the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6206 of 2025 (Shashi Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant / writ petitioner has filed the writ petition being WPS No. 6206 of 2025 against the order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from High School, Ajirma, Ambikapur, surguja to Govt. Higher Secondary School Cherpalli (Bhopalpatnam), Bijapur, under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, stating therein that she was appointed on 21.06.2012 as a Lecturer (Chemistry) and is posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ajirma (Ambikapur). In the Rationalization process, she has been considered as a Lecturer (Science), whereas she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), and a list of surplus Lecturers has been issued by the Respondent No. 5 in which her name is at Sl. No.31. On 02.06.2025, she made her representation to the authorities concerned and raised her objection that vide order dated 29.09.2018, the services of the petitioner were merged with the Education department, she remained there and and one Snehlata Pathak, Lecturer (Chemistry), whose substantive posting is also at Higher 3 Secondary School, Siddhma, Rajpur, District Balrampur, is not declared as surplus, but the petitioner has declared as surplus. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the name of the petitioner is shown as the Lecturer (Science), and Snehlata Pathak has not been declared as surplus. It has been further submitted on 04.06.2025, at the time of counselling, she was not permitted to participate in counselling by saying that she is a Lecturer (Chemistry), and not surplus. Respondent No. 5, who is junior to the petitioner, was allowed to participate in counselling and has been given posting at Municipal Corporation Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur. The petitioner was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling, despite her name appearing in the list. More over, petitioner is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis, and there are no proper medical facilities at Bhopalpatnam, where she was posted now. Therefore, transfer order of the petitioner under the garb of Rationalization Instructions is bad in law, and liable to be quashed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents annexed with the petition, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner vehemently argued that that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the entire rationalization exercise leading to the appellant’s 4 transfer order dated 12.06.2025 suffers from factual errors and procedural irregularities, beginning with the wrongful classification of the appellant’s subject as “Science” instead of “Chemistry”. This erroneous categorization fundamentally altered the surplus list, deprived the appellant of fair counseling opportunities and violated the principles of transparency and fairness under the rationalization policy dated 02.08.2024. She would further submit that on 04.06.2025, at the time of counselling, petitioner was not permitted to participate in counselling by saying that she is a Lecturer (Chemistry), and not surplus. Respondent No. 5, who is junior to the appellant, was allowed to participate in counselling and has been given posting at Municipal Corporation Higher Secondary School, Ambikapur. The appellant was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling, despite her name appearing in the list. Moreover, appellant is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis, and there are no proper medical facilities at Bhopalpatnam, where she was posted now. Therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as transfer order of the appellant under the garb of Rationalization Instructions are bad in law, and are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner vide impugned order which warrants no interference. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the main grievance of the appellant is that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), but she has been considered as Lecturer (Science) and has been declared surplus. It is grievance of the appellant that she was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling on the ground that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry) and there are no surplus Lecturers in the Chemistry subject, and the Respondent No. 5 has been allotted to Ambikapur School. From perusal of the order dated 11.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the appellant and one Snehlata Pathak, were the Lecturers (Chemistry) and they have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. The District Level list of Lecturers shows only two categories, i.e. (1) Biology and (2) Science. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the appellant is considered as the Lecturer (Science), which includes the Chemistry subject as subject of Science. There was no vacant post available for Lecturer (Chemistry/Science) and therefore, the name of appellant is placed in the State Level counselling and she has been allotted the Bhopalpatnam school. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant the general powers of the employer, provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. It is a trite law that 6 transfer/posting is an incidence 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. 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. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra