Smt. Sharda Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11785-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2026.03.12 18:31:43 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 217 of 2026

¶7

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.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate And Chairman Directorate Level Committee First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - The Collector District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶13

4 - The District Education Officer District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶14

5 - The Block Education Officer Block Rajpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶15

6 - The Secretary Rationalization Committee Cum District Education Officer, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶19

2

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.03.2026

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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:-

¶25

“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

¶26

3

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

4

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

¶33

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).

¶34

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶35

Bablu

Smt. Sharda Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharda Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs the Union of India

Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gram Panchayat Mohgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akil Arsad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sandeep Mishra

Amlon Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh