KEKTI YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332272026 2026:CGHC:39296
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6588 of 2026
1 - Kekti Yadav W/o Shri Bhupesh Kumar Yadav presently Aged About
34 Years R/o Vill- Bakli, P.S. And Tah.- Rajim, Dist.- Gariyaband (C.G.)
Working As Assistant Teacher At Government Primary School
Purnapani, Block Deobhog, Dist- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Seniority
No. 611)
.. Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary School Education
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Tah. And
Digitally signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Date: 2026.09.09
10:41:43 +0530
Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, New
Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director Cum Secretary Education Department, Division
Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - District Education Officer Cum Secretary District Rationalization
Committee, Dist- Gariyaband (C.G.)
5 - Tukaram Verma Aged About 15 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher
(L.B) At Government Primary School Jenjara, Block Fingeshwar, Dist.-
Gariyaband (C.G.)
6 - Nand Kumar Netam Aged About 47 Years Posted As Assistant
Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School Fuljhar, Block
Fingeshwar, Dist.- Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Order on Board
08.09.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashment of impugned order dated 03/06/2026 (Annexure P-1),
whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for restoration
of her place of posting, has been rejected under the
rationalization policy.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the
rationalization policy, the petitioner has been transferred from
Government Primary School Darripara, Block Fingeshwar, District
Gariyaband, C.G. to Government Primary School, Purnapani,
Block Devbhog, District Gariyaband, C.G. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed representation before the State Level Committee
and by the impugned order dated 03/06/2026, the same has
been rejected. Learned counsel 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.
3. 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

3
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:-
“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
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

4
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
Rules and Regulations.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”
4. 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.
5.
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.

5
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the
order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No. 674 of 2025 .
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Amardeep