1 2025:CGHC:48897-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 704 of 2025 Satyendra Singh Thakur S/o Late Udal Singh Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o Hanuman Nagar, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director School Education Department, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector/chairman District Rationalization Samiti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer District- Panchayat Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6. Block Edcation Officer Tilda Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7. Block Education Officer Dharsiva District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.24 16:18:10 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6879 of 2025 (Satyendra Singh Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and posted at Middle School Bhadaha, Development Block Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) by order dated 10.11.2010. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.09.2022, respondent No.1 issued a transfer order transferring the appellant from Government Middle School, Bhadaha, Block Tilda, District Raipur to Government Middle Girls School, Ravigram, Block Dharsiva, District Raipur (C.G.). In compliance, the appellant was relieved on 28.10.2022. However, upon his transfer, the Development Education Officer, Dharsiva wrote to the 3 District Education Officer on 31.10.2022 seeking clarification, as the appellant’s joining at Ravigram would create an excess teacher situation. Consequently, the appellant was not permitted to join. The appellant then approached the Joint Director, School Education Department, Raipur, who, vide letter dated 16.11.2022, directed the District Education Officer to take appropriate steps. Pursuant thereto, the Development Education Officer permitted the appellant to join at Government Middle Girls School, Ravigram, where he joined on 23.11.2022. Later, the State Government, vide transfer order dated 05.06.2025, again transferred the appellant to Government Middle School, Lakhna, Block Tilda, District Raipur. The appellant challenged this transfer in WPS No. 6879/2025, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 15.07.2025. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 28.07.2025 observing as follows : “7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4666 of 2025 vide order dated 04/07/2025, holding that 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 4 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 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. The learned Single Judge further held that 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 5 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. 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).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 529 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 529 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a 6 view other than what has been taken in WA No. 529 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in WA No. 529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan