1 2025:CGHC:50804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11542 of 2025 Gauri Shankar Palke S/o Tilak Ram Palke, Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Jhonkapara, Block- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Department Of Public Instruction, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Cum President Of District Level Rationalization Committee Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer, Cum Secretary Of District Level Rationalization Committee Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Cum President Of Block Level Rationalization Committee Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - The Block Education Officer Cum Secretary Of Block Level Rationalization Committee Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 3/Joint Director, Education BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.10.16 11:22:15 +0530 2 Division, Bilaspur by which the petitioner’s representation regarding transfer of petitioner being surplus has been rejected and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 5/the District Education Officer cum Secretary of District Level Rational Committee, Bilaspur has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Jhonkapara, Block Kota, District Bilaspur and vide order dated 04.06.2025 the petitioner has been transferred from Primary School Jhonkapara to Primary School Manwa, Masturi. He would further submit that number of students where the petitioner is teaching are 62 students therefore as per policy of the Government that for more than 60 students apart from Headmaster 03 Teachers should have been appointed whereas in the present institution if the petitioner is transferred then the number of teachers be called from 01 Headmaster to 03 Assistant Teachers to 01 Headmaster and 02 Teachers, therefore, it is violation of the policy of the Government. He would further submit that vital aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the respondent as such he would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.09.2025. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that in the portal number of students has been shown as 57 as such the petitioner has rightly been transferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected the submission and would submit that as per online attendance of the students it falls as 61 as such there is clear violation of the policy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 6. From perusal of the documents, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has nowhere in the writ petition mentioned that since when he has been posted in the present place of posting. On the query it has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been posted on 2019 as such 06 years has already been lapsed. So far as submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that number of students is 61 or 62 therefore, 1+3 teachers should have been posted is misconceived and is liable to be rejected as number of students may be above 60 but ultimately number of classes to which teaching has to be imparted and for smooth functioning of schools the Government has to ascertain proper deployment of the manpower for imparting education to the students. The record of the case would show that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned that which students are from different classes, as such contention raised by the petitioner that if there are 62 students then number of teachers should be 1+3 is deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that either government or private institutions has right to rationalize their industry or the department to get maximum output of the performance by their employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the theory of rationalization of an industry by the employer in case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 801 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entire law with regard to rationalization of manpower by employer, as such the State being best judge of deployment of manpower to get maximum output from its employee/Teacher and keeping in view the aim and object of Right to Education Act, 2009 has introduced rationalization scheme which 4 cannot be found faulty, therefore, transferring the petitioner from the place of posting to another institution where number of Teacher is less cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference. 7. 7. Considering the well settled position of law that the transfer is an incident of service and it is made in exigency of service, no employee can insist to remain posted in particular place of posting for his entire service period and also considering the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been placed in the present place of posting since 2019 and more than 06 years has already been lapsed, as such maximum period which can be considered to remain posted at a particular place of posting is also exhausted by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika