Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:43147-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.26
17:56:23
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 629 of 2025
1 - Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik D/o Daduram Kaushik Aged About 54
Years Posted As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Sadar, Block
Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan,
Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director School Education Division Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - District Education Officer District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.)
5 - Collector, District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.)
2
6 - Smt. Sunita Kashyap Posted At Government Middle School
Gaushala, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa C.G.
7 - Smt. Ashwani Joshi Posted At Government Girls Middle School
Janjgir, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondents/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
26.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, 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
25.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.
4770/2025 (Ku. Prabhawati Kaushik V/s 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 petitioner is presently
posted as Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts at Government
Middle School, Sadar, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-
Champa. she was initially appointed as Teacher (Lower
Division) on 10.07.1995, later promoted as Head Master
(Primary School) on 22.06.2009, and thereafter promoted as
Teacher (Upper Division) on 22.07.2010. A list of excess
teachers was issued for Block Nawagarh, in which the
petitioner's name appeared above that of the private
respondents, as she is senior to them. However, at the time of
counselling, the petitioner's name was ignored, and the
private respondents, though junior, were called for
counselling and allotted schools. The petitioner raised
objections, but to no avail. Subsequently, another list of
excess teachers was issued at the district level wherein the
petitioner's name was again included, and later a third list was
also issued placing his name at Serial No. 49. Aggrieved by the
arbitrary action of the authorities, the petitioner submitted a
representation before the Collector, pointing out that despite
being senior, his name was left out during the first counselling
while juniors were given preference and postings. The
petitioner contends that his posting is neither on account of
any adverse service record nor any administrative exigency,
but is mechanical, arbitrary, and contrary to settled legal
principles, as transfer and posting must be guided by rules,
seniority, and public interest. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant preferred writ petition WPS No.
4770/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order dated
25.06.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
order dated 25.06.2025 is against the settled principles of law
thus is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the
learned Single Bench has committed grave error in dismissing
the writ petition by holding that there was no illegality on the
part of the respondent authorities, whereas in fact the
petitioner, despite being senior, was not called for counselling
and a junior teacher, whose name appeared below the
petitioner in the list, was called and accommodated, thereby
violating the principles of seniority and due process. It is
contended that such omission and commission on the part of
the respondent authorities has seriously prejudiced the
appellant and adversely affected his future prospects. It is
further urged that the learned Single Judge failed to consider
and appreciate the material facts and grievances raised by the
appellant, and the impugned order of dismissal, being
arbitrary and unjust, warrants interference by this Court.
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. 4770/2025, vide order dated 25/06/2025, holding that the
writ petitioner, who is a Teacher (Upper Division) for Arts
subject in Govt. Middle School, Sadar has assailed her transfer
order, which has been issued under the Rationalization
Instructions dated 02.08.2024, which has been issued in
furtherance of the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution
of India and Right to Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. The dispute involved in this case, being
factual in nature, ought not to go into when the
Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode of
consideration for rationalization. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
