Transfer Guidelines for Employee Rationalization Do Not Supplant Employer’s Statutory Power to Transfer in Administrative Exigency

The petitioner, a 60-year-old teacher at Government Girls Middle School, Sida, challenged his transfer order dated June 4, 2025, and a subsequent order dated June 26, 2025

Under these orders, he was moved to Government Middle School Bahtara, Block Masturi, as part of a rationalization process

The petitioner contended that the transfer was illegal, arbitrary, violated the rationalization policy, and caused him serious hardship

The State argued the matter was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench judgment in Shashi Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

1. Whether the transfer order passed under the teacher rationalization policy warranted judicial interference on the grounds of being arbitrary or contrary to guidelines

2. Whether the rationalization instructions and guidelines supplant the statutory power of the employer to transfer employees in public interest

The court relied on the principles established in Shashi Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 674 of 2025)

Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines and do not supplant the employer's general powers under statutory service rules to post personnel in the public interest or administrative exigency

The doctrine that transfer or posting is an "incidence of service," and courts should not interfere unless there is proven malice (mala fide), lack of competence by the issuing officer, or infraction of statutory rules

The Court found that the facts and legal issues in the present case were identical to those in Shashi Shrivastava

It observed that while the petitioner alleged the transfer violated rationalization norms, such instructions are non-statutory guidelines that do not override the state's administrative power to manage its workforce

Since the petitioner failed to prove any mala fide intent, lack of authority by the respondent, or a specific violation of statutory rules (as opposed to mere policy guidelines), the court determined that the transfer was a valid exercise of administrative discretion in the public interest

Following the precedent of the Division Bench, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the transfer is an inherent part of service and the petitioner must comply with the administrative exigency