[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sharda Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11785-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.03.12
18:31:43
+0530
WA No. 217 of 2026
Smt. Sharda Dubey W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey Aged About 44
Years Working As - Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Primary School Bariyo,
Block Rajpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate And Chairman
Directorate Level Committee First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
4 - The District Education Officer District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj
(C.G.)
5 - The Block Education Officer Block Rajpur, District - Balrampur -
Ramanujganj (C.G.)
6 - The Secretary Rationalization Committee Cum District Education
Officer, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : 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
12.03.2026
1. Heard Mr.A.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant as well as
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
27.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(S) No.835 of 2026 by which the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
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, wherein this Court observed as under:-
"7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires
that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition i.e. WPS No. 4666 of 2025 vide order dated
04/07/2025, holding that 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. 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)."
4. In view of above, the present writ appeal is also dismissed in
terms of the judgment passed by this Court in WA No.529/2025.
No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
