1 2025:CGHC:55631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11642 of 2025 • Smt. Renuka Sahu W/o Shri Poonam Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Shankar Nagar, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Director, Directorate Of School Education, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur C.G. 4. Collector, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 5. Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur C.G. 6. District Educaton Officer, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 7. Block Education Officer, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 8. Block Education Officer, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11644 of 2025 • Smt. Pramila Rathore W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Rathore Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 6 B.D. Mahant Up-Nagar, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 2. Director Directorate Of School Education, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. District Education Officer District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Block Education Officer Block- Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8. Block Education Officer Block- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 12617 of 2025 • Namrata Singh W/o Pusph Raj Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ujirpara, Kosa, Post - Kosa, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Education Division - Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer District - Janjgir Champa, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 5. The Block Eduction Officer Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. The Principal Govt. Primary School, Kewa, Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) WPS No. 12657 of 2025 • Priyanka Rani Singh W/o Jitendra Singh Aged About 39 Years Presently Working And Posted As Govt. Primary School, Markadih, Dhurkot, Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 3 versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Education Division - Bilaspur Division - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. The Block Education Officer Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G. 6. The Principal Govt. Primary School, Markadih, Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Pranav Singh Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School, Markadih Dhurkot, Block Navagarh, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s For Petitioner(s) in WPS No. 11642 of 2025 and WPS No.11644 of 2025 : Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate. or Petitioner(s) in WPS No. 12617 of 2025 and WPS No.12657 of 2025 : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate. For State Mr. Suyashdhar Badagaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas ) Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. Since the common facts and law are involved in the bunch of these cases, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order and out of bunch matters, WP(S)No. 11642 of 2025 (Smt. Renuka Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) shall be treated as lead case and the facts of the case have been taken into consideration while deciding the issue raised in bunch of these cases. 4 2. The petitioner who is working as Assistant Teacher (female) has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4-6-2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa by which she has been transferred from Government Janpad Primary School, Basantpur, Block Baloda to Government Primary School, Dhanpur, Block Akaltara, and also assailed the order dated 10-7-2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Education Officer by which the representation of the petitioner preferred before the Education Officer has been rejected and also assailed the order dated 15-9-2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the transfer order has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the State to bring uniformity in posting of teachers in all the schools, has introduced rationalization policy (Annexure P/7) on 2-8-2024, according to which criteria was fixed for identification of the surplus teacher has been provided in Clause 6 of the said policy which reads as under. “ N% %& vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dk fpUgkadu %& 1- fodkl[k.M Lrjh; lfefr ,d gh ifjlj esa fLFkr nks ;k nks ls vf/kd izkFkfed @ iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dh ntZ la[;k ,oa dk;Zjr f’k{kdkas dh fo|ky; esa inLFkkiuk frfFk ds vk/kkj ij vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dh tkudkjh lwphc) djsxh] lkFk gh lfefr fudV ds de ntZ la[;k okys fo|ky;ksa ds vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dh lwph Hkh rS;kj djsxhA ¼layXu %& ifjf’k"B 5½ 2- fodkl[k.M Lrjh; lfefr }kjk ntZ la[;k ds vuqikr esa fjDr inksa dh fo|ky;okj lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA 3- fodkl[k.M Lrjh; lfefr }kjk fo"k;okj fjDr inksa dh fo|ky;okj lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA 4- vafre #i ls rS;kj lwph ds vk/kkj ij ftyk Lrjh; lfefr vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dk fjDr inksa ij inkadu dkmalfyax ds ek/;e ls 5 djsxhA 5- bZ laoxZ ds vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dh inLFkkiuk bZ laoxZ dh ’kkykvksa esa rFkk Vh laoxZ ds vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dh ijLFkkiuk Vh laoxZ dh ’kkykvksa esa dh tk;sxhA 6- ftyk Lrj ij inLFkkiuk ds Ik’pkr~ fjDr LFkku us gksus ds dkj.k dqN vfr’ks"k f’k{kdksa dh inLFkkiuk ’ks"k jg tkrh gS rks budh lwph ftyk lfefr }kjk laHkkxh; la;qDr lapkyd dks izsf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA laHkkxh; la;qDr lapkyd }kjk bldk ijh{k.k dj dkmalfyax ds ek/;e ls inLFkkiuk dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA lgk;d f’k{kd dk in ftyk dSMj dk gSA vr% budh inLFkkiuk ftys ls ckgj ugha gksxhA blh rjg f’k{kd dk in laHkkx dSMj dk gSA vr% budh inLFkkiuk laHkkx ds ckgj ugha gksxhA vfr’ks"k O;k[;krk ftudk lek;kstu ftyk ,oa laHkkx Lrj ij ugha gks ik jgk gS mldh lwph laHkkxh; la;qDr lapkyd }kjk lapkyd] yksd f’k{k.k dks izsf"kr dh tk;sxhA lapkyd] yksd f’k{k.k }kjk ’ks"k vfr’ks"k O;k[;krkvksa dk inkadu dkmalfyax ds ek/;e ls r; fd;k tk;sxkA “ 4. Since the issue relates to Primary school, therefore, only criteria for primary school has been taken into consideration. Clause 10 of the said policy provides for counseling the procedure. Sub clause (vii) of Clause 10 of the Policy provides seniority for consideration ie., (I) teacher whose retirement is two years of less, (ii) female teachers (based on seniority list), (iii) Office bearers of the teachers organization recognized by the Government, (iv) Cluster Educational Co-ordinator (based on seniority list) and (v) other teachers (as per seniority list). Accordingly, counseling was conducted in which only female teacher has been transferred at large number and only 42 male teachers have been transferred on account of rationalization policy. The petitioner on the factual matrix has prayed for quashing of the transfer order as it is a discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Since the criteria has been adopted wherein only senior female teachers have been transferred whereas the male teachers have not been transferred despite their identification as 6 surplus teachers. 5. Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No.11642 of 2025 and 11644 of 2025 would submit that the criteria fixed by the respondents for giving benefit of rationalization scheme to the teachers has not been properly understood and they have wrongly applied and interpreted sub clause (vii) of Clause 10 of the said policy which provides that as per counseling, priority has to be given to the female teachers for place of posting and not for transferring the female candidate under the rationalization policy. As such, he would submit that the respondent authority has not considered the policy and mechanically transferred 207 female teachers out of 435 surplus teachers and only 42 male teachers have been transferred. Thus, there is glaring example of discrimination, as such he would pray for quashing of all the orders. To substantiate his arguments, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitisha vs. Indian Army, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 125. wherein the Hon’ble has held for determining discrimination the effect of policy has to be seen, not the intent of the policy. 6. Mr. Asutosh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPS Nos. 12657 of 2025 and 12617 of 2025 has adopted the aforesaid submissions. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Shashikant Kumar Choudhary, Deputy Collector and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa would submit that they have rightly followed the procedure as sub clause (vii) of Clause 10 of the policy provides that seniority has to be given to female teachers. Thus, they would submit that the impugned order does not suffer from perversity, 7 arbitrariness and malafide warranting any interference by this Court. He would further submit that all the authorities have passed the orders considering the entire facts and no detailed reason is required to be given by the authority as the impugned order does not suffer from any serious consequence as the transfer is an incident of service and thus he would pray for dismissal of the bunch of the writ petitions. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that transfer is an incident of service and it is also not in dispute that no Government servant can insist to remain posted at one particular place forever, but it does not mean that the respondent authority adopted discriminatory attitude in following the policy framed by the State itself. The respondents while posting 207 female teachers only transferred 42 male teachers out of 435 surplus teachers which is highly discriminatory as percentage of female teachers who have been transferred is about 45% and percentage of male teachers is 12% whereas sub clause (vii) of Clause 10 of the said policy provides that priority has to be given to female teachers for selecting the place of posting according to their choice and priority has to be given to women and the respondents have deliberately misled the policy and wrongly applied it. Even, it is also well settled position of law that the policy does not confer any right but in view of the well settled position of law that the respondents from the very inception of the case have taken the stand that they have given priority to the teacher for rationalization, however, the effect of such policy is result into arbitrariness and discrimination. The record shows that arbitrary action has been followed by the respondents and it is well settled position of law that this court while exercising its writ 8 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the decision but definitely interfere in decision making process. 10.From the record available on record and the contentions raised by the parties it is not in dispute that the respondents have given priority for rationalization and not for posting them at appropriate place, which is contrary to mandate of sub clause(vii) of Clause 10 of the said policy, therefore, the impugned orders transferring the petitioners, the order passed by the Joint Director and all the authorities whereby the representation and appeal have been rejected/dismissed, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 11.Accordingly, the bunch of writ petitions are allowed. It is made clear that even if the petitioners are relieved, they will be allowed to joint at their earlier places. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.11.19 12:58:42 +0530