Judgment reaffirms that transfer and rationalization of teachers are administrative matters, and courts should not interfere unless there is evidence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules. High Court clarifies that rationalization guidelines are mere administrative instructions and do not override employer’s discretion under service law. The judgment upholds existing precedent, serving as binding authority in the State service context.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WA/782/2025 of VIVEK KUMAR SINHA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH CNR CGHC010422842025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Government employment, Teacher transfers, Rationalization policy |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that rationalization instructions are administrative guidelines, not statutory rules. Interference by courts in transfer/posting orders, especially those made in public interest under rationalization policies, is unwarranted except on grounds of mala fides or infringement of statutory rules. The employer retains broad discretion over posting and deployment, subject only to judicial oversight for illegality or arbitrariness. The rationalization process in this case adhered to prescribed norms, including exemption for probationers and subject-wise selection. The petitioner’s claim, based on seniority, was rejected as unsustainable under the policy and settled law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Established principle that transfer and posting are incidents of service and within employer’s discretion unless mala fide or contravention of statutory rules is demonstrated. Rationalization guidelines are administrative and cannot displace statutory powers unless incorporated in service rules. Prior Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 529/2025 (28.07.2025) also followed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, a senior Mathematics teacher, was declared surplus and transferred under a rationalization policy. He contended that he should have been retained based on seniority and subject preference, and that a probationer should not have been so retained. The State responded that surplus identification was as per norms and policy, and that probationers are exempt as per the policy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering analogous rationalization/transfer challenges in government service |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that administrative rationalization instructions for transfer/posting do not have the force of statutory law.
- Judicial interference in transfer/posting orders under rationalization policies is limited to cases of mala fides or breach of statutory rules.
- Mere claims based on seniority or guideline deviation, absent illegality, are insufficient for court intervention.
- Exemption of probationers under rationalization policy upheld as valid.
- Prior High Court judgments in similar fact situations are followed, further clarifying consistency in policy application.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the exhaustive consideration by the Single Judge of the Rationalization Policy and attendant facts, including seniority and subject-wise surplus determination.
- The Single Judge’s reliance on established Supreme Court precedent (Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey; Chief Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway v. G. Ratnam; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar) was approved, emphasizing that transfer/posting in service law is a managerial prerogative.
- The Rationalization Policy was recognized as an administrative guideline, intended for equitable teacher deployment, and does not override the employer’s service rule powers.
- Clause 10(6) (probationer exemption) and subject-wise surplus selection as per Clause 7-B(5) were interpreted as properly followed and not arbitrary.
- The bench reiterated that judicial review will only lie if mala fides or violation of statutory norms is established, which were absent in the present case.
- Noted that a similar Division Bench decision (Writ Appeal No. 529/2025) applied the same principle, denying judicial interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Asserted he was the senior-most teacher and could not be declared surplus under any circumstances as per the Rationalization Policy.
- Pointed out that the policy required surplus identification starting with junior teachers and on subject preference.
- Alleged that policies were not consistently applied – other teachers similarly situated were given benefit.
- Claimed discriminatory application, especially since he was the only Mathematics teacher and had served since 2013.
- Contended that probationers should not be retained over seniors under the relevant clauses.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the Single Judge’s order, asserting that rationalization was as per instructions dated 02.08.2024.
- Emphasized that surplus declaration was based on subject/student ratio as per norms.
- Maintained that retention of a probationer was as per Clause 10(6) of the Rationalization Policy.
- Stated appellant had already been accommodated elsewhere and suffered no prejudice requiring interference.
Factual Background
The appellant, a senior Mathematics teacher at Middle School, Barkela, was declared surplus and transferred to Middle School, Maniyari under a Rationalization Policy issued in August 2024. He claimed that, in violation of the policy and his seniority, he was declared surplus while a probationer was retained. The initial petition challenging the transfer/posting orders was dismissed by the Single Judge, prompting this writ appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the Rationalization Policy instructions dated 02.08.2024, particularly Clause 7-B(5) (subject-wise rotation) and Clause 10(6) (probationer exemption from surplus list).
- Cited the general principle that transfer/posting are incidents of service, guided by service rules rather than administrative guidelines.
- Discussed that administrative guidelines do not override statutory rules or the employer’s prerogative unless wrongful exercise or breach of statute is shown.
- No “reading down” or “reading in” was applied; the Policy was interpreted per its plain terms.
- No constitutional provisions were directly invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions recorded; the judgment was delivered per curiam.
Procedural Innovations
- Allowed condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the writ appeal as per the grounds stated in the application.
- No new procedural precedent or innovations reported.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and applies existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents in service transfer and rationalization matters.