1 CGHC010352752026 2026:CGHC:41334-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 895 of 2026 Smt. Pushpa Dhruw W/o Nand Kumar Dhruw Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Chhirahi, Block Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education Division Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Pallari, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge Judgment on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice 23.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned Deputy Governement Advocate, appearing for the State/Respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.09.23 15:47:10 +0530 2 2. The Appellant, in this intra-Court appeal seeks to assail the order dated 21.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6269 of 2026. 3. The Appellant (Writ Petitioner) filed Writ Petition(S) No. 6269 of 2026 assailing the order of transfer dated 06.08.2026, whereby she has been transferred from Government Primary School Chhirahi, Block Pallari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara to Government Primary School Karhi, Block Simga. 4. Mr. Dewangan, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for brevity, “RTE Act”), the prescribed Pupil- Teacher Ratio is required to be maintained. In the said School, there were 04 Teachers posted against 63 students, and if the Appellant joins at the place of transfer, then the Pupil-Teacher Ratio cannot be maintained as there would be an excess of Teachers. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there is no infraction of any statutory rules and regulations. Since the provisions of the RTE Act have been violated, the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. 5. Ms. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/Respondents, objects to the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and submits that the Appellant, being an employee, cannot challenge the order of transfer on the ground that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio is not maintained. Moreover, it is neither stated in the Writ Petition nor in the Writ Appeal as to how the 3 provisions of the RTE Act are violated if 05 Teachers are posted against 63 students. It is further submitted that the Appellant has been transferred to a place which is only 8 Kilometers away from her present place of continuance. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the order of transfer of the Appellant. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Appellant has been transferred from Government Primary School Chhirahi, Block Pallari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara to Government Primary School Karhi, Block Simga. It is stated by Ms. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, that it is only 8 Kilometers away from the present place of continuance of the Appellant. The provisions of the RTE Act do not limit the appointment of Teachers in excess of the Pupil-Teacher Ratio provided therein. As such, there is no infraction of any statutory rules or regulations. Further, an employee cannot challenge the order of transfer on the ground that there are excess employees at the place to which he or she is being transferred. 7. In view of the above, we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order under Annexure A/1. As such, the writ appeal merits no consideration. Hence, the same stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Anu