1 2026:CGHC:15277-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 262 of 2026 Puneshwar Kumar Netam S/o Mehattar Singh Aged About 42 Years Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Middle School Jamul, Block Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ...Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Directror (Education) Durg Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.C.J.K.Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2.4.2026 1. Heard Mr.C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel for the appellant as well as BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.04 10:38:26 +0530 2 Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1561/2026 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein/writ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2025 in WA No.529/2025 (Smt.Pooja Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which this Court has observed as under:- “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, 3 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).” 4. In view of above, the present writ appeal is also dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.529/2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu