Transfers/postings made in terms of Rationalization Instructions—where procedure and administrative exigency are followed—cannot be set aside unless there is proven malice or violation of statutory rules. The judgment upholds established principles on service jurisprudence, confirming limited judicial review over transfer/postings, and serves as binding precedent within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/752/2025 of SMT. ABHILEKHA SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010306422025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Judge order in WPS No. 4545/2025 |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Transfers, Rationalization Policy) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that transfer and posting of surplus teachers under the state’s Rationalization Instructions is an incidence of service and an administrative exigency. Judicial interference is unwarranted unless there is evidence of malice or violation of statutory rules. The procedure for identification of surplus teachers, preparation of gradation lists, and prioritization in counseling (including for female employees) was found to have been duly followed as per the instructions. The appellant’s allegations of arbitrary interpretation were not substantiated. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specified in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | General principles relating to transfer as incidence of service and scope of judicial review over administrative orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant, an Assistant Teacher, was identified as surplus and transferred as per Rationalization Instructions. She challenged the transfer on grounds of alleged arbitrary procedure, claiming misinterpretation of clauses concerning school identification and priority in counseling for female teachers. Both at Single Judge and Division Bench, her contentions were rejected as the process was found consistent with instructions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar rationalization/transfer disputes |
| Follows | Follows and affirms order of Single Judge in WPS No. 4545/2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that court interference in transfer/posting—when done as an incidence of service and administrative necessity—is highly restricted, absent malice or statutory violation.
- Clarifies that prioritization for female employees in transfer counseling under rationalization is valid if aligned with the laid-down procedure and gradation lists.
- Asserts that procedural adherence to Rationalization Instructions, even if it results in hardship, does not ipso facto render the administrative decisions arbitrary or legally infirm.
- Lawyers should focus challenges on clear evidence of mala fide intention or non-adherence to statutory procedure; mere dissatisfaction with outcome is insufficient grounds for relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench examined whether transfer/posting of the appellant as a surplus teacher under the state’s Rationalization Instructions suffered from arbitrary interpretation or violated relevant provisions, especially clauses 10(4) and 10(7).
- It found the authorities had duly prepared gradation lists for surplus teachers (including a separate list for female assistant teachers), identified requisite number of schools as per instructions, and followed the prescribed counseling process.
- The court referred to general jurisprudence that transfer/posting is an incidence of service governed by administrative exigency; courts may not intervene unless malice or statutory infraction is demonstrated.
- Clause 10(4) was interpreted as outlining the method for identifying schools (teacherless, single teacher, then those with excess students), and Clause 10(7) was found to prioritize female teachers in counseling according to seniority.
- The appellant’s claim that fewer schools than surplus teachers were identified was found not to amount to a procedural breach warranting court intervention.
- Lacking any palpable infirmity or perversity in the Single Judge order or the administrative process, the appeal was dismissed without merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Alleged wrongful and arbitrary interpretation of Rationalization Instructions, particularly regarding identification of surplus teachers and school selection.
- Claimed that female teachers, meant to benefit from clause 10(7), instead faced hardship as counseling was conducted for fewer posts than the number of surplus teachers.
- Contended that the authorities’ actions caused prejudice and violated the intended convenience clauses for female employees.
Respondent (State):
- Defended that the Rationalization Instructions and prioritized counseling process were properly implemented.
- Asserted that Single Judge order was reasoned and required no interference.
- Pointed out no malice, statutory violation, or perversity in the process or decision.
Factual Background
The appellant, serving as Assistant Teacher in Janjgir-Champa, was identified as surplus during implementation of the state’s rationalization policy, which sought to redistribute teachers. A total of 433 surplus assistant teachers were listed; 253 vacant schools were identified. Separate gradation lists were prepared for all surplus teachers and female assistant teachers. The appellant was allotted a new posting through the counseling process; dissatisfied with the post, she challenged the transfer order. Her writ petition was dismissed; she then filed this intra-court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, especially clauses 7-A, 10, 10(4) (regarding identification and display of schools for counseling), and 10(7) (granting priority in counseling, especially for female teachers and those near retirement).
- Clause 10 outlines the serial process for assigning surplus teachers to teacherless schools, then to single-teacher schools, and if required, to schools with excess admissions.
- The court affirms that procedural compliance with these instructions suffices unless a legal or procedural breach is evident.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment does not record any separate dissenting or concurring opinions; both judges concurred in dismissing the appeal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, changes to evidence law, or suo motu directions are recorded in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law on judicial review of transfers/postings as incidence of service is affirmed.