1 2025:CGHC:28834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 392 of 2025 1 - Annapurna Rathore (In Person) W/o Hemant Kumar Rathore Aged About 40 Years At Present Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Government Primary School Khaira, Block Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Annapurna Rathore (In person) For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.01 20:02:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant, who was the writ petitioner in the writ petition, against the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 5734 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 vide order dated 13.07.2006 and was posted at Govt. Primary School, Kohrouda, District Bilaspur. Vide order dated 28.08.2018, the services of the petitioner have been merged from Panchayat Department to the Education Department and in the order dated 28.08.2018, her name is placed at S. No. 832. On 03.08.2023, the respondent No.2 passed an order, in which it has been ordered that the seniority of the teachers, who have completed 8 years of their services or more, their seniority will be counted from 01.07.2018. However, vide impugned order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No.4, the seniority of the petitioner is being reduced and she has been treated as junior and her name is placed at S. No. 2624, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 3. The writ appellant (in person) would submit that in the order dated 01.07.2018 and the seniority list, the name of the petitioner find place at 3 S. No. 832, which is prepared by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur. From the order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the respondent No.2, it has also been cleared that the seniority will be counted from 01.07.2018, but the petitioner’s seniority has been reduced and her name is placed at S. No. 2624 in the seniority list prepared by the office of District Education Officer, whereas she is entitled for placement of her name at S. No. 832 in the said seniority list, yet her representation/objection has not been considered by the authorities and the writ petition has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the services of the petitioner were transferred from District Janjgir-Champa to District Bilaspur vide order dated 30.10.2012 and she joined at her transferred place of posting on 29.11.2012. A guideline was issued by the State Government on 25.06.2013 and a policy on 17.06.2014, in which it has been categorically mentioned that the employees who have been transferred on their own request, their seniority would be placed at the bottom of the list of employees of the said district/block. It is also submitted that the seniority list (Annexure P/1) is not only for Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), but it is a combined list of Assistant Teachers, Assistant Teachers (Science)/(Lab)/(LB) and therefore, the name of the petitioner is find place at S. No. 2624 and there is no illegality in fixing the seniority of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the case of the petitioner and has dismissed the writ petition. 4 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 6. The guidelines/circular issued by the State Government dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure R/5) provided that, if an employee comes from another district on transfer, then his/her seniority would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of that district, in which he/she has been so transferred and joined. From the notification dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure R/6) also, it has been provided that, such employees shall be treated as junior most in the said district. The relevant part of Annexure R/6 is reproduced herein below:- “शिक्षक (पंचायत) संवर्ग के कर्मचारी द्वारा जिस जिले र्में स्थानांतरण की र्मार्ग की र्गई है उस जिले के र्मुख्य कायपालन अधि&कारी, जिला पंचायत द्वारा संचालक, पचायत के परीक्षण उपरात आदे ारी किकये ायेंर्गे। नवीन पदस्थापना स्थल पर यकिद पृथक से वरिरष्ठता सूची लार्गू है. तो ऐसा स्थानांतरिरत कर्मचारी सूची र्मे ककिनष्ठतर्म् र्माना ायेर्गा। शिक्षक (पंचायत) संवर्ग को उनकी पूरी सेवा अवधि& एक बार ही स्थानांतरण की पात्रता होर्गी।” 7. The petitioner could not dispute that initially she was posted at Primary School, Jharra, Block Bamhanidih, District Janjgir-Champa and she has been transferred on her own request to Primary School, Jairamnagar, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur vide order dated 30.10.2012 and she joined there at her transferred place of posting on 29.11.2023, therefore, she could be treated as junior most at Bilaspur district in the said block Masturi. In view of the aforesaid guidelines/circular dated 25.06.2013 and 17.06.2014, her name has rightly been placed at S. No. 2624 in the seniority list, and she cannot claim her original seniority of 5 District Janjgir-Champa. 8. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts and law applicable to the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the foregoing, the writ appeal lacks merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved