1 2025:CGHC:44840-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 648 of 2025 1 - Ramdas Manikpuri S/o Shri Hemdas Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years Lecturer Chemistry (Lb) Swami Aatmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School Chhindpur, Block Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Instruction Directorate, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:39:59 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. for the State. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5691 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:- I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing/set aside the order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent no. 3. ii) Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 3 4. The writ petitioner contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Lecturer (LB) (Chemistry) and posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur, Block Katghora, which is presently known as 'Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur, Block Katghora'. The petitioner was posted there on deputation vide order dated 27.09.2023 and now under the Rationalization Instructions, he has been declared surplus there and has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Talnar, District Sukma. At the time of counseling, on 12.06.2025, the petitioner raised objection before the respondent No.2 that he is on deputation at Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur and his name is not there in the list of surplus Lecturers, therefore, he cannot be considered to be surplus, yet he has been declared surplus and transferred. He made his representation before the respondent No.2 and raised objection that as per clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions, the Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi/English Medium Higher Secondary Schools/P.M. Shree Schools' will not be adjusted, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus, but the representation of the petitioner has not been considered, therefore, the transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that the rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer is under the 4 strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. At Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur, two Lecturers (Chemistry) were working, out of which one Smt. Vimla Kanti Janardan had joined in the school on 23.05.2018, whereas the present petitioner Ramdas Manikpuri had joined on 28.08.2019, therefore, he being the junior, has been declared as surplus. He would further submit that it is the Swami Atmanand Schools and P.M. Shree Schools, would not be merged, but it is not there that the teachers/lecturers of that schools are also exempted from their rationalization. Swami Atmanand Schools and P.M. Shree Schools are not merged, but the teachers/lecturers are rationalized. Further, the consent of the concerned lecturer is required only when they are proposed to be posted at Swami Atmanand School or P.M. Shree School on deputation. In the present case, they have been transferred from Swami Atmanand School to the Govt. Higher Secondary School, for which their consent is not required. The petitioner refused to opt the school on 12.06.2025 at the time of counseling and his representation dated 07.06.2025 has been rejected by the respondent No. 5. The petitioner could not demonstrate any arbitrariness or mala fide in the transfer order; therefore, no relief can be granted to her in the writ petition. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing 5 thus at paras 5,6 & 7:- 5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB) (Chemistry) was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur and has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Talnar. His claim is that he is posted at Swami Atmanand Hindi Medium Higher Secondary School and he cannot be declared surplus as he is on deputation and Swami Atmanand Schools are exempted from its merger. From perusal of clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, it transpires that only Swami Atmanand Hindi/English Medium Schools and P.M. Shree Schools are exempted from its merger. It is nowhere mentioned that the Teachers/Lecturers posted at Swami Atmanand Schools or P.M. Shree Schools are also exempted from their rationalization. The petitioner being the junior than the other Lecturer (Chemistry) posted in the school, has been declared surplus and has been transferred. From the document (Annexure P/3), it also reveals that the petitioner has refused to opt the school at the time of counseling on 12.06.2025. Further, from the document annexed with the petition, filed on 23.06.2025 through covering memo, it further transpires that the petitioner was asked to submit his representation before the District Rationalization Committee, Korba. It is also not the case that the petitioner is sending on deputation to Swami Atmanand School, for which his consent is necessary, but it is a case, where he has been transferred from Swami Atmanand 6 School and posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Talnar. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or mala fide on the part of the authorities concerned, which makes him entitled for the reliefs claimed. The ground raised by the petitioner that he has been transferred on erroneous ground, would not be sufficient to quash the transfer order dated 12.06.2025. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement 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 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 public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of 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 7 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. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this court vide judgment dated 28.07.2025 in WA No. 529 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “7……..the writ petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Gaushala Naila has assailed her transfer order, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. For primary schools, the rationalization of the teachers are to be considered as per clause 7-A of the said instructions. The process of counseling was also given in the said instructions dated 02.08.2024 in Clause 10. Further, Clause 10 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that the surplus teachers are to be firstly transferred to teacherless schools and then single teacher school and only thereafter, they could be posted in the schools having excess students. For the counseling, the equal number 8 of schools, either teacherless, single teacher or excess students' school should be displayed equal to the surplus teacher, keeping in view that all the teacherless and single teacher school, should be necessarily displayed and only thereafter, the schools having excess students should be displayed. Clause 10.7 of the said instructions also provides the priority to the ladies teachers on the basis of their seniority. 8…..from perusal of clause 7 and 10 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, it is quite vivid that there is proper procedure prescribed to trace the surplus teacher and for their posting in other school either teacherless, single teacher or school having excess students. Further, it also appears that as per clause 10.7 the ladies teachers have given priority and they have been called in counseling and as per their option and choice, they have been posted at the respective places. It cannot be said that the authorities have arbitrarily exercised their powers to declare the writ petitioner surplus and to transfer her services to other school. It is only an administrative exigency under the Rationalization Instructions, It is a trite law that 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 public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of 9 transfer/posting of an employee. 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 /appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 9. In view of above, the present writ appeal is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 529 of 2025. No cost(s). Sd Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib