1 2025:CGHC:16371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2352 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Dubey D/o Hirdyanand Tiwari Aged About 48 Years Promoted As Head Master (Primary School) At Government Primary School, Chutaipath, Serangdag, Block Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.09 16:22:15 +0530 2 4 - District Education OfÏcer Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education OfÏcer Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 08.04.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 29.01.2025 by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) to the post of Head Master (Primary School) and after counselling the petitioner has been posted at Government Primary School, Chutaipath Serandag, Block Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) vide order dated 29.09.2024. Earlier the petitioner has preferred the writ petition WPS No. 8224/2024, the said writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 4 was directed to consider the representation and to take a decision within a period of 4 weeks. The petitioner submitted representation pursuance to the 3 order of this Court, however 29.01.2025, the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the State Government circular the petitioner should be posted as Head Master, in the place of posting where the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) i.e. Govt. Primary School Jirhuldih Block Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). Learned counsel by referring the circular dated 07.02.2022 issued by the DPI submits that there is a policy to posting that after promotion of employees, if posts are lying vacant the promoted employee should be posted at the place where he was earlier working. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the policy is only a guideline and it was provided that as far as possible the posting should be made by adhering to the circular. She further submits that at the time of counselling the petitioner did not submit option for posting and for which the petitioner has been posted in the present place of posting i.e. Government Primary School, Chutaipath Serandag, Block Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). Hence there is no illegality in the order by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the order by which the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. 6. The reference made by the petitioner to the circular issued by the DPI dated 07.02.2022 is not a mandatory guidelines, whereas it has been provided that as far as possible the employees should be placed at his earlier place of posting in case of promotion, hence the 4 petitioner cannot take resort to the guidelines dated 07.02.2022 for her earlier place of posting where she was working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.). The District Education OfÏcer has consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and by reasoned and speaking order rejected the representation of the petitioner by observing that at the time of counseling the petitioner has not opted for any choice of posting and hence the order passed by the District Education OfÏcer by rejecting the representation is just and proper there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib