Ashish Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:25757

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 9353 of 2025

¶6

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.06.24 10:52:06 +0530

¶7

Ashish Verma S/o Late B.P. Verma, Aged About 42 Years (Assistant Teacher) (L.B.), Govt. Naveen Primary School, Giroud, Block Dharsiwa District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. State Of Chhattisgarh State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Director, Directorate Of Public Institution, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3. The Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

5. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

6. The Block Education Officer, Dharsiwa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Appellant	: Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate
For Respondent/	: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Adl A.G. along with Mr.
State	Avinash Singh, P.L.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

2

23.06.2026

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of his impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-2).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government New Primary School Bhatapara Giroud, Dharsiwa to Government Primary School Pandarbhatta, Dharsiwa have been passed by the respondent authorities in an illegal and arbitrary manner and are contrary to the provisions of the rationalization policy. He further submits that the petitioner has been transferred without proper justification and in disregard of the norms prescribed under the applicable policy governing rationalization and transfer of teachers. He also submits that the impugned transfer order has caused serious hardship to the petitioner.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No.674 of 2025 (Shashi Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

¶26

“8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the main grievance of the appellant is that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), but she has been considered as

¶27

3

¶28

Lecturer (Science) and has been declared surplus. It is grievance of the appellant that she was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling on the ground that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry) and there are no surplus Lecturers in the Chemistry subject, and the Respondent No. 5 has been allotted to Ambikapur School. From perusal of the order dated 11.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the appellant and one Snehlata Pathak, were the Lecturers (Chemistry) and they have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. The District Level list of Lecturers shows only two categories, i.e. (1) Biology and (2) Science. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the appellant is considered as the Lecturer (Science), which includes the Chemistry subject as subject of Science. There was no vacant post available for Lecturer (Chemistry/ Science) and therefore, the name of appellant is placed in the State Level counselling and she has been allotted the Bhopalpatnam school. Even otherwise. Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant the general powers of the employer, provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory

¶29

4

¶30

Rules and Regulations.

¶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, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶32

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

¶33

Learned State counsel further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 674 of 2025, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶34

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WA No. 674 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ appeal.

¶35

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No. 674 of 2025 .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶38

Jyoti

Ashish Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subodh Kumar Vs Union of India

Chhattisgarh State Hostel Superintendent Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fulsingh Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sangita Deep Vs State of Chhattisgarh

J.R. Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bedram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh