1 2025:CGHC:60200-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 912 of 2025 Smt. Baijanti Rathore W/o Shri Netabhai Rathore Aged About 42 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Jagdalla, Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Joint Director Joint Director O5ce, Bilaspur Division, Ghodadana School, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education O5cer Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - The Block Education O5cer Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.11 18:48:52 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5576/2025 (Smt. Baijanti Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby, the writ petition 9led by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 18.02.2009 and, after successive transfers, has been serving at Government Primary School, Kurda. In March 2025, the school strength was incorrectly shown as 89 instead of 94, leading to the appellant being treated as an excess teacher. Despite submitting a representation seeking clari9cation, no response was given. On 04.06.2025, the appellant was transferred under the process of rationalisation by treating her as surplus. She challenged the order by 9ling W.P.(S) No. 5576/2025, contending that the student strength was wrongly recorded and her seniority was ignored, as junior female teachers were placed above her in the counselling list. According to the appellant, the learned Single Bench, by order dated 24.06.2025, dismissed the petition holding 3 that no documents had been produced to substantiate either the actual student strength or violation of seniority, which has led to the 9ling of the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is contended that as per the Rationalisation Policy 2025, a school with a strength of 91–120 students must have four teachers including the Head Master, whereas the appellant’s school had 94 students as reCected in the mid-day meal data for October 2024. However, the strength was subsequently shown as 89 in March 2025, rendering the appellant an excess teacher. Although the appellant submitted a representation dated 02.06.2025 seeking clari9cation, no decision or information was provided, which prevented her from producing supporting documents. It is further submitted that Clause 10.7.2 of the Rationalisation Guidelines mandates preparation of a separate seniority-based list of female candidates for counselling, but junior teachers were placed above the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that being aggrieved by her transfer order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 5576/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.06.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner. Hence this appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/ State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the 4 aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition 9led by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 5576/2025, vide order dated 24/06/2025, holding that the writ petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher has assailed 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 9rstly 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. 5 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. 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 9nding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition 9led by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justi9able reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable in9rmities 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 in9rmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6 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 S. Bhilwar