For Appellant : Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
18.09.2025
1. Heard Abhinav Sharma learned counsel for the appellant and
Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/
2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
WPS No. 7307 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by
appellant/ writ petitioner was dismissed.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:-
10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the costs of the petition may be
given.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/appellant,
who is a Lecturer (LB), is posted at the Girls Education
Campus, Ambagarh Chowki. He has been declared surplus
there and has been transferred to High School Nelasnaar,
Bhairamgarh, Block Bijapur. According to learned counsel, at
Girls Education Campus, Ambagarh Chowki, there are 245
students and he took more than 4 subject periods every day,
yet he has been declared as surplus and has been transferred.
From the time table of the school (Annexure P-8), it is clear that
the writ petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day and
therefore as per clause 7 (C) (1) of the rationalization
instructions, if the Lecturers are taking less than 4 periods per
day, the junior of them would be considered surplus whereas in
the present case the petitioner is taking 4 period. According to
learned counsel, the impugned transferred order is against the
Rationalization Instructions. According to learned counsel that
on 18-06-2025, this court passed the order in W.P.S. No.
4933/2025 directing the petitioner to move his fresh
representation within 05 days, and the authorities concerned
shall decide the representation within 07 days, but the
representation of the petitioner has not been considered in
accordance with the Rationalization Instructions. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred writ petition
WPS No. 7307/2025, but the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 25.07.2025, dismissed the petition preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is wholly unsustainable as
the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true import of
Clause 7(c) of the Rationalization Policy. He would submit that
under Clause 7(c)(3), when more than one lecturer is working
against a sanctioned post, only the junior among them can be
treated as surplus, whereas in the present case the appellant is
working against one of the two sanctioned posts of Lecturer
(English) in Respondent No. 5 school and therefore falls within
the authorized strength and establishment. It is further
contended that the enrolled strength of the said institution is
245 students from Classes 6 to 12, and Clause 7(c)(1) does not
prescribe any numerical threshold to determine what
constitutes "very less" strength. Counsel submits that
Respondent No. 5 school has two sanctioned posts of Lecturer
(English), both validly occupied, one by the appellant himself,
which clearly demonstrates that the appellant is not surplus. He
further submits that the appellant is taking four English lectures
daily, as evident from the time table, and in terms of Clause 7(c)
(1), only the lecturer with less than four lectures and junior in
rank can be declared surplus. Hence, declaring the appellant
surplus is contrary to the policy provisions and the impugned
order deserves to be set aside.
6. In the said writ petition, the respondents contended that there
are 139 students in the school and the petitioner has stated the
total strength of the students from class 6th to 12th which is
total 245 students but in the Higher Secondary School only 139
students are there and as per Clause 7(C)(3) of the
rationalization instructions, there were 2 Lecturers and the
petitioner being the junior, has been declared surplus. While
considering the representation of the petitioner, it is also
considered that there is no teaching for more than 4 subject
periods by the petitioner. The authorities have passed a
reasoned order while considering the representation of the
petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge
dismissed, the writ petition by the order impugned observing
thus:
6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is taking 4 subject periods per day of
the English subject in the school, and there are
245 students in the school; therefore, as per
Clause 7 (C) (1) of the Rationalization
Instructions, he cannot be declared as surplus.
From perusal of the representation of the
petitioner (Annexure P-5), it transpires that the
strength of 245 students is the total strength of
students from Class 6th to 12th. From the order
dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-6), the authorities
have considered that in the school where the
petitioner is posted, having 139 students, and he
is a junior lecturer in the English subject in the
school, and his subject period is not more than 4,
therefore, he has been considered as surplus.
Clause 7 (C)(1) and (3) provides that where the
number of students is less and 2 Lecturers are
posted for one subject, the junior of them would
be declared as surplus. In the present case also
the petitioner is junior, and his subject period is
not more than 4, and therefore, there is no
violation of Rationalization Instructions. The
authorities have rightly considered the
representation of the petitioner and rejected the
same. His representation has been rejected by
the authorities concerned, and the petitioner
does not want to pursue further representation
before the Divisional committee. Therefore, this
court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness
in the impugned transfer order or rejection of the
representation of the petitioner. Under the
Rationalization instruction, he has rightly been
considered surplus and transferred.
7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an
incident 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 the
public interest and administrative exigency.
Further, it is for the government to post another
person if any vacancy arises on account of the
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. Further, this
Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the
transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the
case of proved mala fide, non-competence of
authority passing the transfer order, or the
transfer order not being in conformity with the
rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee
cannot be permitted to remain at one place
forever by the Court order. It is not a case of
proved mala fide, lack of competence of the
officer passing the transfer order or infraction of
any statutory Rules and Regulations.
8. 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.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed.
9. 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).
10. 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
