1 2025:CGHC:56538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13145 of 2025 • Rupesh Kumar Diwan S/o Late Jeevanlal Diwan Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School, Dumaridih, Block - Chhura, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Joint Director Education Division, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Collector Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 5. The District Education Officer And Secretary Under District Rationalization Committee Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 6. The Block Education Officer Chhura, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 7. State Level Rationalization Committee Through Its Chairman, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 20/11/2025 1. This is third round litigation. The petitioner who is working as Assistant Teacher has filed this Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11-9-2025 (Annexure P/1) by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Raipur against the order passed by the District Education Officer and Secretary, District Rationalization Committee by which the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Dumardih, Block Chhura District Gariyaband(CG) to the Primary School Ghotiyabharri , Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no vacant post was shown to the petitioner at the time of passing the order of rationalization posting and the petitioner been transferred from Primary School, Dumardih, Block Churra, District Gariyaband to Primary School Ghotiyabharri, Block Mainpur and the proposed place of posting is more than 100 kms away from the present place of positing which will cause serious inconvenience to the petitioner and his family. She would further submit that the wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Gopeshwari Diwan is posted as Headmaster, Primary School,Karidadar, Block Chura, District Gariyaband. The respondents while rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not considered the fact that there are several schools under Block Churra where the post is lying vacant. She would further submit that the impugned transfer order is in violation of rationalization policy of the State Government. Thus she would pray for quashing of the impugned order dates 11-9-2025 and 1-6-2025. 3 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been posted/transferred to the present place of posting in administrative exigency. He would further submit that the transfer order has been issued in accordance with the Transfer Policy which does not suffer from any malice or arbitrariness. He would further submit that the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to be posted at the earlier station as transfer is an incident of service and the competent authority is empowered to post the officer wherever administrative exigency exists. He would further submit that the transfer order does not amount to punishment nor has it been passed on extraneous grounds and it is a routine administrative order issued in the normal course. He would further submit that there is no violation of statutory rule, malafide, or incompetence in issuance of the said order, therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from illegality which warrants interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is quite vivid that the Divisional Level Committee, Raipur while considering all the aspects of the matter, has rejected the representation of the petitioner by recording its finding that the schools have been considered taking into consideration the single teacher or where the teaching faculty is necessary or where there is no teacher available for imparting education to the students studying in the respective schools. It is not in dispute that at present only 68 students are imparting education in the schools where 4 more than required number of teachers are available. The decision taken by the Committee in transferring the petitioner is in accordance with law. The posting of the petitioner according to his choice is not permissible in view of well settled position of law that no employee can insist to remain posted in a particular place of posting of his entire service period. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman & others Vs. Union of India & others [(2022) 12 SCC 1], has held at paragraph 24 as under:- 6. “24. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the transfer is in violation of rationalization policy, as such the same is liable to be quashed. This submission is liable to be rejected as it is well settled position of law that the transfer policy does not confer any indefeasible right of a government servant to remain posted at a particular place forever. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of SK Nausad Rahaman (supra) has held in paragraphs 26 & 27 as under:- “26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the PART D requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice JS Verma (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta 24 held : “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with 5 the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. […] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” 27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas 25 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” ” 6 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman (supra), this court is of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.11.21 11:00:43 +0530