1 2025:CGHC:54532-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 809 of 2025 Poonam Bariyar W/o Shri Pradeep Ray Aged About 57 Years Occupation Lecturer, R/o Imlipara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)..........(Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary District Rationalisation Committee, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Collector District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.10 17:03:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8521 of 2025 (Poonam Bariyar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is serving as a Lecturer (Biology), was earlier posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand. Pursuant to the Rationalization Instructions, 2024, she was transferred and posted to Government Higher Secondary School, Loharshi (Son) vide order dated 04.06.2025. In compliance with the said order, she was relieved from her previous posting on 10.06.2025. It is contended that the appellant had challenged the said transfer order on the ground that another Lecturer (Biology) presently posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand is due to retire in January 2026, resulting in a vacancy for the 3 same subject shortly thereafter. Hence, the appellant could have been suitably adjusted against that post instead of being transferred. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 were not duly followed by the respondents. Despite her name being omitted from the gradation list, she was declared surplus from Government Higher Secondary School, Kududand. The District Level Rationalization Committee, while considering her representation, passed the order in a mechanical manner without addressing the specific grievances raised by the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order of posting passed by the said Committee is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge failed to properly consider the documents and material available on record and dismissed the writ petition without adequately dealing with the grounds and arguments raised by the appellant on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge overlooked an important contention regarding the counseling process, which was conducted behind the back of the appellant and without affording her a fair opportunity of hearing. The impugned transfer order has thus been passed in a manner reflecting arbitrariness and non-application of mind. It is also urged that the respondents ignored the fact that the appellant is a senior and regular employee of the Education Department and that her name was not even reflected in the seniority list. Despite this, she was transferred without 4 her consent and in violation of due process. It is further stated that on the date of counseling i.e. 04.06.2025, the appellant was out of station and could not attend in person; however, she had sent her application through correspondence, which was not considered by the respondents. Consequently, the impugned transfer order has caused serious hardship and irreparable loss to the appellant, compelling her to repeatedly approach this Hon’ble Court for redressal. 6. On the other hand, it has been pointed out by learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No.529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 28.07.2025 observing as follows : “7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4666 of 2025 vide order dated 04/07/2025, holding that the writ petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Gaushala Naila has assailed her 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 firstly 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 5 be displayed. Clause 10.7 of the said instructions also provides the priority to the ladies teachers on the basis of their seniority. 8. The learned Single Judge further held that 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. Further, it also appears that as per clause 10.7 the ladies teachers have given priority and they have been called in counseling and as per their option and choice, they have been posted at the respective places. 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 finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner /appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities 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 infirmity 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).” 6 Learned State counsel further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 529 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 529 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 529 of 2025. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in WA No. 529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan