For Appellant : Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate
For : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate
Respondents/State General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. for the State.
2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
WPS No. 5691 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by
appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:-
ii) Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
may also be allowed.
4. The writ petitioner contended in the writ petition that the
petitioner is a Lecturer (LB) (Chemistry) and posted at Govt.
Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur, Block Katghora, which is
presently known as 'Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium
Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur, Block Katghora'. The
petitioner was posted there on deputation vide order dated
27.09.2023 and now under the Rationalization Instructions, he
has been declared surplus there and has been transferred to
Govt. Higher Secondary School, Talnar, District Sukma. At the
time of counseling, on 12.06.2025, the petitioner raised
objection before the respondent No.2 that he is on deputation at
Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Higher Secondary School, Chhindpur
and his name is not there in the list of surplus Lecturers,
therefore, he cannot be considered to be surplus, yet he has
been declared surplus and transferred. He made his
representation before the respondent No.2 and raised objection
that as per clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions, the
Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi/English Medium Higher
Secondary Schools/P.M. Shree Schools' will not be adjusted,
yet the petitioner has been declared surplus, but the
representation of the petitioner has not been considered,
therefore, the transfer order of the petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
5. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that the
rationalization of the petitioner and his transfer is under the
strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions dated
02.08.2024. At Swami Atmanand Utkrisht Hindi Medium Higher
Secondary School, Chhindpur, two Lecturers (Chemistry) were
working, out of which one Smt. Vimla Kanti Janardan had joined
in the school on 23.05.2018, whereas the present petitioner
Ramdas Manikpuri had joined on 28.08.2019, therefore, he
being the junior, has been declared as surplus. He would
further submit that it is the Swami Atmanand Schools and P.M.
Shree Schools, would not be merged, but it is not there that the
teachers/lecturers of that schools are also exempted from their
rationalization. Swami Atmanand Schools and P.M. Shree
Schools are not merged, but the teachers/lecturers are
rationalized. Further, the consent of the concerned lecturer is
required only when they are proposed to be posted at Swami
Atmanand School or P.M. Shree School on deputation. In the
present case, they have been transferred from Swami
Atmanand School to the Govt. Higher Secondary School, for
which their consent is not required. The petitioner refused to opt
the school on 12.06.2025 at the time of counseling and his
representation dated 07.06.2025 has been rejected by the
respondent No. 5. The petitioner could not demonstrate any
arbitrariness or mala fide in the transfer order; therefore, no
relief can be granted to her in the writ petition.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge
dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing
thus at paras 5,6 & 7:-
5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB)
(Chemistry) was posted at Govt. Higher
Secondary School, Chhindpur and has been
transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Talnar. His claim is that he is posted at Swami
Atmanand Hindi Medium Higher Secondary
School and he cannot be declared surplus as he
is on deputation and Swami Atmanand Schools
are exempted from its merger. From perusal of
clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions
dated 02.08.2024, it transpires that only Swami
Atmanand Hindi/English Medium Schools and
P.M. Shree Schools are exempted from its
merger. It is nowhere mentioned that the
Teachers/Lecturers posted at Swami Atmanand
Schools or P.M. Shree Schools are also
exempted from their rationalization. The
petitioner being the junior than the other Lecturer
(Chemistry) posted in the school, has been
declared surplus and has been transferred. From
the document (Annexure P/3), it also reveals that
the petitioner has refused to opt the school at the
time of counseling on 12.06.2025. Further, from
the document annexed with the petition, filed on
23.06.2025 through covering memo, it further
transpires that the petitioner was asked to submit
his representation before the District
Rationalization Committee, Korba. It is also not
the case that the petitioner is sending on
deputation to Swami Atmanand School, for which
his consent is necessary, but it is a case, where
he has been transferred from Swami Atmanand
School and posted at Govt. Higher Secondary
School, Talnar. The petitioner could not
demonstrate any palpable infirmity or mala fide
on the part of the authorities concerned, which
makes him entitled for the reliefs claimed. The
ground raised by the petitioner that he has been
transferred on erroneous ground, would not be
sufficient to quash the transfer order dated
12.06.2025.
6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions
are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the
general powers of the employer provided under
the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at
a place in the public interest and in administrative
exigency. 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. [see Airport
Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and
others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial
Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad
and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8)
SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others
v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC
659]. Further, from the documents annexed with
the petition and the instructions submitted by the
respondents/State, this Court do not find any
scope of interference in this petition..
7. In view of the above settled legal position and
also in the facts and circumstances of the case,
no case for interference with the impugned order
is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the
State submits 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 of 2025, whereby
the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-
"7........the writ petitioner, who is the Assistant
Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Gaushala Naila
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.....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).
9. In view of above, the present writ appeal is dismissed in terms
of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 529 of 2025. No
cost(s). Sd
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
shoaib
