Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Pradip Kumar Rande – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 8704 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey
Transfer orders in service are at the discretion of the employer unless statutory rules are violated.
Headnote:The petitioner, a differently abled teacher, challenges a posting order citing clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions, claiming he should not be considered surplus. The State argues compliance with the Rationalization Instructions. The court finds no documentation supporting the petitioner's claim and maintains that transfer orders are at the employer's discretion. The petition is dismissed as no grounds for interference are established.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of not being surplus due to disability under rationalization instructions. (Para 2) |
| 2. state's defense based on the rationalization instructions and lack of documentation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court rules based on the employer's discretionary powers in postings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court dismisses the writ petition. (Para 8) |
Order on Board
Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH VEDPRAKASHDEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:
2025.08.01 +0530
30/07/2025
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner who is a Teacher (English) was posted at Govt. Middle School, Dhurvatola, has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Badajugera (Ashram), Block Daundilohara under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Merger and Rationalization Policy Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside the impugned posting order transfer (Annexure-P/2)
of the petitioner.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation within a period of
15 days in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is differently abled teacher and suffering from 40% of locomotive disability. As per clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he cannot be declared surplus and cannot be posted at any other place from the present place of posting. The petitioner has made his representation on 12.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 before the authorities, but the same has not been considered till date and therefore, the impugned order of his posting dated 02.06.2025 is against the Rationalization Instructions and the same is liable to be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted as Teacher (English) and is declared surplus at Govt. Middle School, Dhurvatola. Under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions, he has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School, Badajugera. Though he claimed in his representation that, his appointment was on the basis of his disability, but he has not filed any document in the present writ petition showing that his appointment is under the said category. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions provided that the differently abled teachers may not be declared surplus, who have been appointed on that quota, and therefore, there is no ground in the present writ petition to challenge the posting order dated 02.06.2025, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition.
5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher is claiming that he should not be treated as surplus teacher in the school under the provisions of clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions is reproduced hereinbelow for its consideration:-
“दस :- काउंसिሴ(cid:9)ग की ्ቚቅኌ(cid:14)या :- अति(cid:18)शेष शिश्ቌकों की पदस्थापना पारदश(cid:30) कॉउंसिሴ(cid:9)ग के माध्यम से की जायेगी। इसकी ्ቚቅኌ(cid:14)या ቅኌनम्नानुसार होगी :-
5. अति(cid:18)शेष शिश्ቌकों की गणना कर(cid:18)े समय ቅኌदव्यागं कोटे के अन्(cid:18)ग.(cid:18) ቅኌनय्ሹु शिश्ቌक यቅኌद कቅኌन्(cid:18)म है (cid:18)ो उ्ሹ ቅኌदव्यागं शिश्ቌक को छोड़कर अन्य क
