SMT. POOJA YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

3

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. 4666 of 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

4

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

5

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 teracherless 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

6

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. 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

7

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

8

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 Manpreet