1 2026:CGHC:7946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13864 of 2025 1 - Smt. Maya Bajaj W/o Shri Badal Bajaj, Aged About 36 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher R/o Near City Kotwali, Kera Road, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Directorate Of School Education, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5 - The Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The District Education Officer, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 7 - The Block Education Officer, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 8 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.16 11:33:04 +0530 2 (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher and she was posted at Government Primary School, Parsada. By order Annexure P-1, she was transferred to Government Primary School, Kharkhod under rationalization scheme. He contended that similarly situated teachers have filed writ petition before this Court, which came to be decided vide order dated 14.11.2025, wherein the order of transfer of petitioner was quashed on the ground that the policy formulated by the State Government was not proper. Case of petitioner is also covered with the said decision. 2. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed with respect to passing of order by Coordinate Bench by this Court in similar writ petitions filed by teachers challenging their order of transfer under rationalization policy. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 4. Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition bearing WPS No. 11642 of 2025 and other connected cases, have made following observations :- 3 “9. It is not in dispute that transfer is an incident of service and it is also not in dispute that no Government servant can insist to remain posted at one particular place forever, but it does not mean that the respondent authority adopted discriminatory attitude in following the policy framed by the State itself. The respondents while posting 207 female teachers only transferred 42 male teachers out of 435 surplus teachers which is highly discriminatory as percentage of female teachers who have been transferred is about 45% and percentage of male teachers is 12% whereas sub clause (vii) of Clause 10 of the said policy provides that priority has to be given to female teachers for selecting the place of posting according to their choice and priority has to be given to women and the respondents have deliberately misled the policy and wrongly applied it. Even, it is also well settled position of law that the policy does not confer any right but in view of the well settled position of law that the respondents from the very inception of the case have taken the stand that they have given priority to the teacher for rationalization, however, the effect of such policy is result into arbitrariness and discrimination. The record shows that arbitrary action has been followed by the respondents and it is well settled position of law that this court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the decision but definitely interfere in decision making process. 10. From the record available on record and the contentions raised by the parties it is not in dispute that the respondents have given priority for rationalization and not for posting them at appropriate place, which is contrary to mandate of sub clause(vii) of Clause 10 of the said policy, therefore, the impugned orders 4 transferring the petitioners, the order passed by the Joint Director and all the authorities whereby the representation and appeal have been rejected/dismissed, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 11. Accordingly, the bunch of writ petitions are allowed. It is made clear that even if the petitioners are relieved, they will be allowed to joint at their earlier places.” 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the submission of learned counsel for parties, this petition is also allowed in same terms of order dated 14.11.2025, passed in of WPS. No.11642 of 2025 and other connected cases. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram