1 2026:CGHC:23208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4198 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sushma Meshram W/o. Chandrashekhar Meshram Aged About 48 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) R/o. Ward No. 16, Dauchowra, Khairagarh Dist.- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Education Indrawati Bhavan, First Floor, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Office Of Education Division Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gaindai C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23/04/2026 issued by the Director of Public Education, 2 Raipur, by which, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28/07/2025 passed in WA No.529/2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of C.G. & Ors), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “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 3 thereafter, the schools having excess students should 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 4 /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) ” 3. 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 petition is identical to WA No.529/2025. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28/07/2025 passed in WA No.529/2025. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib