1 2025:CGHC:49361-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 675 of 2025 Jai Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Dileshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Ward No. 12, Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 01) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 02) 3 - The Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 03) 4 - The District Education Officer Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 04) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.26 16:40:00 +0530 2 5 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Jamnipali, Block Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 05) 6 - Smt. Leena Rathore Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Jamnipali, Block Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 06) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/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 26.09.2025 1. Heard Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.8360/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed. 3 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:- "a) That, the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to treat the petitioner as not excess in the institution, In the ends of justice. b) That, the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to quash the posting order of the respondent no 06 by the virtue of the order dated 30/009.2022 as being void-ab-initio, in the ends of justice. c) That, the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 23.06.2025 preferred by the petitioner with respect to not considering him as excess in the school/institution, in the ends of justice. d) That, the Hon'ble court may kindly issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner's salary is regularly drawn from Government Higher Secondary School, Jamnipali, District Korba. e) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4 4. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/appellant, the petitioner is a Lecturer (Physics) and was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamnipali, Block Katghora. He joined there at Jamnipali school on 13.10.2022. The respondent No.6 came to Jamnipali school on mutual transfer with one Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel, who was the Lecturer (Physics) in the school. He would also submit that Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel has already resigned from the post and the respondent No.6 cannot be considered to be there on mutual transfer with him. The incorrect and non-existent mutual transfer the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 5067 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2025 directing the petitioner to move his fresh representation before the Collector, Korba who shall decide the same within the stipulated period. The representation of the petitioner dated 23.06.2025 is still pending and the respondent No.4 issued an order on 16.07.2025 directing the petitioner to appear in the counseling scheduled to be held on 17.07.2025. Despite pending the representation of the petitioner, he has been posted after declaring him surplus and therefore, he filed the writ petition challenging the order of declaring him surplus and posting of the respondent No.6 as mutual transfer with Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel is void ab initio. The rationalization of the petitioner and his posting is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the same is liable to be 5 quashed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 8360/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the posting of Respondent No. 6 was wholly illegal, being based on a non-existent mutual transfer with Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel, who had already resigned on 06.06.2022, rendering the order dated 30.09.2022 and the subsequent posting void ab initio and incapable of forming a valid basis for declaring the Appellant surplus. Clause 3 of the transfer list dated 30.09.2024 clearly provides that if a post falls vacant due to resignation, non- joining, termination, suspension, or death, the transfer is void ab initio; thus, the resignation of Mr. Patel nullified Respondent No. 6’s posting, and the Appellant’s continuance as Lecturer could not have been disturbed. It is further urged that the declaration of the Appellant as surplus and the subsequent counseling order dated 16.07.2025 were issued despite the Appellant’s representation, filed pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction, still being pending, thereby violating principles of fairness and due process. The finding that the Appellant did not challenge the posting order dated 17.07.2025 is also erroneous, as the writ petition itself directly questioned the very foundation of surplus declaration and the illegal posting of 6 Respondent No. 6. It is lastly submitted that reliance on the general principles of non-interference in transfer matters is misplaced, as this is not a case of ordinary transfer in public interest but one of arbitrary action in clear violation of the binding Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 6. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that vide order dated 17.07.2025, the petitioner was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Korbi (Chotiya), Block Podi-Uproda and he has not challenged his order of posting dated 17.07.2025. The order dated 17.07.2025 was communicated to the petitioner through WhatsApp in his mobile number on 21.07.2025. The representation of the petitioner dated 23.06.2025, which was made in compliance of the order dated 19.06.2025, passed in WPS No. 5067 of 2025 has been decided on 23.07.2025 and his representation is rejected. He would also submit 06.06.2022, the post of Lecturer (Physics) was vacant at Jamnipali school. The petitioner had joined at Jamnipali school on 13.10.2022 and thereby, from the date of their respective joining in the school, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Korbi (Chotiya). There is no illegality or infirmity in the posting order of the petitioner under the rationalization. 7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge 7 dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing thus: “5. The petitioner has challenged his declaration as surplus on the ground that the respondent No.6 has been posted in the school showing the mutual transfer with Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel, whereas he was already resigned on 06.06.2022. From the order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the Collector, Korba, it transpires that he respondent No.6 had joined in the school on 12.10.2022 in compliance of the order dated 30.09.2022 and prior to that Mr. Bhagwat Prasad Patel has already resigned and post of Lecturer (Physics) was vacant in the school. By the same order dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner was also transferred to Jamnipali school and he has joined in the school on 13.10.2022 and thus, the petitioner is junior to the respondent No.6 and has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The representation of the petitioner dated 23.06.2025 made in compliance of the order dated 19.06.2025, passed in WPS No. 5067 of 2025 is rejected on 23.07.2025. the petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in declaring him surplus at Jamnipali school. Further, the petitioner has not challenged his order of posting dated 17.07.2025. 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 8 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 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 is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 9. 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 9 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 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, 10 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 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 11 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). 10. 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