Courts will not interfere with teacher transfers absent mala fides or statutory violations.

The petitioner, a Teacher (L.B.) posted at Government Middle School, Borda, Janjgir-Champa, challenged his transfer from Government Middle School, Borda, Janjgir, to Government Middle School, Bhalapur.

He sought quashing of the transfer order dated 07.06.2025 and consequential orders dated 03.07.2025, 19.09.2025 and 17.12.2025.

His case was that the transfer was arbitrary, unsupported by proper justification, contrary to the applicable teacher-rationalization policy, and had caused him hardship.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Shashi Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WA No. 674 of 2025, decided on 18.09.2025.

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer order and consequential orders were illegal, arbitrary, or contrary to the applicable teacher-rationalization policy?

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the transfer order when the governing rationalization instructions are merely guidelines and no mala fide, statutory violation, or lack of authority is established?

The Court applied the principle that transfer and posting are incidents of service and ordinarily fall within the employer’s administrative authority, particularly where undertaken in public interest or administrative exigency.

Teacher-rationalization instructions are guidelines and do not override the general powers of the employer under the applicable statutory service framework.

Judicial interference with a transfer order is warranted only where there is established mala fide, lack of competence or jurisdiction in the authority passing the order, or infringement of statutory rules and regulations.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Shashi Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WA No. 674 of 2025, decided on 18.09.2025, which affirmed these principles.

The Court noted that the issues and factual circumstances in the present petition were identical to those considered in Shashi Shrivastava.

Applying the binding reasoning of that decision, the Court treated the rationalization instructions as guidelines rather than provisions restricting the employer’s general power to transfer employees in the public interest or for administrative exigency.

Since the petitioner’s challenge was based principally on alleged non-compliance with the rationalization policy and hardship, and no established mala fide, statutory-rule violation, or lack of authority was shown, the Court found no basis to adopt a view different from the earlier Division Bench ruling.

The challenge to the transfer order dated 07.06.2025 and the consequential orders was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025.