1 2025:CGHC:36317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7251 of 2025 1 - Sanjeev Jaiswal S/o Shri Vyas Narayan Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government High School, Madwadhodha, Block Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instructions (Dpi) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Public Education Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sangita Bhagat Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government High School, Madwadhodha, Block- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:58:28 +0530 2 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), by which he has been posted from High School, Madwadhodha, Block Katghora, District Korba to Govt. High School, Banshipur, Block Sonhat, District Koriya and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the District Education Officer, Raipur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favor of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB) (Biology) was transferred to Govt. High School, Madwadhodha on his own request vide order dated 21.08.2019 and he joined there on 29.08.2019 to the office of District Education Officer, Korba and he was relieved from there on 03.09.2019 to join at Govt. High School, Madwadhodha. The respondent No.6 was transferred to Govt. High School, Madwadhodha on her own request vide order dated 22.08.2019, and she had joined there on 27.08.2019. Since, the petitioner had transferred earlier to the respondent No.6, he has to be considered senior to the respondent No.6 and in view of the distance between two places, the date of joining may not be considered for their seniority in the school. The respondent No.6 is junior to the petitioner and despite his order of transfer dated 21.08.2019, she was also 3 transferred vide order dated 22.08.2019, which is arbitrary and therefore, the rationalization of the petitioner and declaring him surplus is also arbitrary, therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, in compliance of the transfer order dated 21.08.2019, the petitioner was relieved from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gorpar on 28.08.2019 and he joined at the office of District Education Officer, Korba on 29.08.2019 and he was relieved from there to join at Madwadhodha school on 03.09.2019. Prior to that, the respondent No.6 had already joined in the school on 27.08.2019 in compliance of her transfer order dated 22.08.2019. From the year 2019 till date, the transfer orders dated 21.08.2019 or 22.08.2019 have not been challenged by the parties. Since, the respondent No.6 had joined earlier to the petitioner, she being the senior in the school as per her date of joining and therefore, the petitioner has been declare surplus and has been posted at Govt. High School, Banshipur. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had transferred to Govt. High School, Madwadhodha by the transfer order dated 21.08.2019 and the respondent No.6 has been transferred vide transfer order dated 22.08.2019. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had joined in the office of District Education Officer, Korba on 28.08.2019 and he was 4 relieved for Madwadhodha school on 03.09.2019, whereas the respondent No.6 had joined at Madwadhodha school on 27.08.2019. As per clause 7-C(3) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, if more than one Lecturers are being posted against one post, the junior amongst them would be declared surplus. Since, the petitioner had joined later to the respondent No.6, she has been considered senior to the petitioner in the school as per their respective dates of joining in the school and the petitioner has been declared surplus. Although, the transfer order of the petitioner is earlier to the transfer of the respondent No.6, however the relevant consideration would be of their date of joining and not the order of their transfer. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the impugned order of his posting. 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 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 5 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 with the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved