1 2025:CGHC:52627-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 768 of 2025 Kamlesh Banjare S/o Shri Dharmu Ram Banjare Aged About 37 Years Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Primary School Jutmil Labour Colony, Raigarh Block Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - District Education O9cer Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Kamla Maharshi Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Primary School Sonumuda, Block Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri C. J. K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.30 10:44:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6967/2025 (Kamlesh Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby, the writ petition ?led by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is presently working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.). The appellant has been declared surplus in the counseling list. In the list published by the District Education O9cer Raigarh prior to counseling the school of the appellant has been shown vacant. The respondent no.5 has been posted in place of the appellant, which is contrary to the Rationalization Policy. Thereafter the appellant immediately made representation before the respondents No.3 & 4, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, the appellant ?led a Writ Petition bearing WP(S) No. 4432/2025, whereby this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025, kept the impugned transfer order in abeyance and directed the Committee to consider and decide the representation of the appellant, appellant submitted his representation raising all grounds, but the same has not been 3 considered and vide order dated 20.06.2025, the application of the appellant has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 6967/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that against the order dated 04.06.2025, the appellant had ?led WPS No. 4432 of 2025, which was disposed of on 13.06.2025 with liberty to make fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, who shall decide the same within the stipulated time frame. On 20.06.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee by saying that in view of the strength of the students in the school, the teachers were considered surplus and they have been posted to other schools. He would further submit that the respondent No.5 is posted in place of the petitioner at Govt. Primary School, Jute Mill, which is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Had there been, any vacant post at Primary School, Jute Mill, appellant would not have been declared surplus there, yet he declared surplus and posted at Shivpuri school and in his place, the respondent No.5 is adjusted. The representation of the petitioner is decided in mechanical manner. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No. 6967/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner. Hence this 4 appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition ?led 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. 6967/2025, vide order dated 14/07/2025, 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 ?rstly 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, 5 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. 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 ?nding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition ?led by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justi?able reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable in?rmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant 6 case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable in?rmity 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). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar