Transfer orders under rationalization policies are administrative exigencies not subject to interference absent proven malice.

The petitioner, a Hindi teacher (E-Cadre) at Govt. Middle School, Janjgiri, Durg, challenged a transfer order dated 07.06.2025.

Under this order, she was moved to Govt. Middle School, Kodwagobarra, Kabirdham District.

The petitioner contended the transfer was arbitrary, violated rationalization policy norms, and caused personal hardship.

The State argued the matter was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench judgment in Shashi Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 674 of 2025).

1. Whether the transfer order dated 07.06.2025 was illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of the teacher rationalization policy.

2. Whether administrative guidelines regarding teacher rationalization override the general powers of an employer to transfer employees in public interest.

The Court relied on Section 3 of the judgment which cites the Division Bench ruling in Shashi Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh.

This precedent establishes that teacher rationalization instructions are mere guidelines and cannot supplant the general powers of the employer provided under statutory service rules to post personnel based on public interest or administrative exigency.

it is a settled principle that transfer is an incidence of service, and courts should only interfere if there is proven malice, lack of competence, or infraction of statutory rules.

The Court examined the petitioner’s claim of policy violation against the established legal position that rationalization instructions are advisory guidelines rather than mandatory statutory restrictions.

Relying on the reasoning in Shashi Shrivastava, the Court noted that unless a transfer order is tainted by mala fides or a clear breach of statutory regulations, it remains within the administrative discretion of the employer.

Since the facts of the present case—involving a teacher transferred under rationalization—were identical to the precedents cited by the State, the Court found no reason to depart from the earlier judicial view that such transfers are valid administrative actions taken in the public interest.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining that transfer is a condition of service and the petitioner failed to prove any malice or statutory violation warranting judicial interference.

The petition was dismissed in terms of the order passed in WA No. 674 of 2025.