Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Preeti Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:39698-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 583 of 2025
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.08
18:39:47
+0530
1 - Smt. Preeti Yadav W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav Aged About 35
Years Working As Assistant Teacher, R/o Shankar Nagar, Champa
Road, Ward No. 18, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.)
2
5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee, District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
6 - District Education Officer District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
7 - Block Education Officer Block- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri R.L. Rajak, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate
General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. R.L. Rajak, learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur learned Additional Advocate
General for respondents / State.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated
04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.
4710/2025 (Smt. Preeti Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as an
Assistant Teacher (Primary) under the respondent department
in District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Under the said rationalization
policy, the appellant has been identified as a surplus teacher
in District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The respondents have
identified total 433 surplus assistant teachers in the district,
including the present appellant. Thereafter, the respondent
authority identified 253 vacant schools as per the said
rationalization instructions. The respondents have first
prepared a gradation list of 433 surplus assistant teachers and
then another gradation list has been prepared by the
respondent authority of 209 "Female Assistant Teachers."
After preparation of the gradation list, the counselling of only
253 assistant teachers has been done out of 433 assistant
teachers, wherein the present appellant was given choice of
place of posting, however the appellant did not give her
consent for the given choice, yet order of her posting at the
said place has been issued in an arbitrary manner. Whereas, in
the event of appellant's refusal, the respondents were
required to call other assistant teachers who remained left till
date and are still working at their earlier place of posting. In
this way the respondents have issued the posting order of the
appellant by misinterpreting the provisions of said
Rationalization Instructions. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No.
4710/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated
04.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant /
writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
order dated 04.07.2025 is against the settled principles of law
thus is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge ought
to have held that the respondent authorities have wrongly
interpreted the provisions of Rationalization Instructions. As
per clause 10(7) of rationalization instructions, preference in
the counselling has to be given to an employee whose
retirement is due within 02 years, then the "female
employees" have were to be called and so on. Clause 10(7) has
been introduced in order to ensure convenience to female
employees of the department and those who are at verge of
their retirement. However the respondents in a very
surprising manner have misinterpreted the said provision and
have conducted counseling only for 253 posts and have called
253 assistant teacher out of 433 surplus assistant teachers,
whereby they have called the female candidates (209 in
number) first and posted them all without their consent,
including the Appellant. This has caused serious prejudice to
the female assistant teachers, including the Appellant. So the
provision which is meant to cause convenience to the female
assistant teachers has been used to cause hardship to them.
Further, the leaned Single Judge also failed to appreciate
clause 10(4) of rationalization in its true sense. Clause 10(4)
provides that the number of schools identified under
rationalization instructions must be similar to the number of
surplus teachers identified under the instructions. The
learned Single Judge has also erred in interpreting clause
10(4) & 10(7) of the Rationalization Instructions. In para 07 of
the impugned order it has been held 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." It is
submitted that clause 10(4) does not provides so, because the
said clause provides for how the schools have to be identified
for the purpose of counselling and not for transfer. It provides
that number of schools must be shown equal to the number
of surplus teachers. In the present case the said number was
433. Then the said clause further states that in the said
process firstly teacherless schools have to be shown/included
thereafter single teacher schools have to be shown/included.
In case of requirement schools with excess admission have to
be included. Meaning thereby, while identifying 433 schools
the respondents were required to first identify teacherless
schools in the district, if 433 teacherless schools are not there
in the district then schools with single teachers are to be
included and if still 433 schools are not identified with both
the said categories then the schools with excess admission
was to be included. But in no case the number of school could
have been less than number of surplus teachers, 433 in the
present case. Whereas the respondents have identified only
253 schools and this is the reason only female teachers have
been posted and except very few male assistant teachers,
male teachers have not been posted and are still working at
present place of posting.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after
considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein,
in which no interference is called for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned order and other documents appended with writ
appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS
No. 4710/2025, vide order dated 04/07/2025, holding that the
writ petitioner, who is the Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary
School, Sadar Janjgir 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 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 / 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).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep
