1 2025:CGHC:22367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3904 of 2025 Smt. Saroj Bhuarya W/o Shri Milind Bhuarya Aged About 56 Years Post - Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), R/o New Khandelwal Colony, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner / Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - The Block Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.05.28 12:46:48 +0530 2 6 - Smt. Pratibha Khaparde Lecturer (L.B.), Office Of The Principal, Government Hr. Secondary School, Shankarpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 27/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is posted as Lecturer in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District - Rajnandgaon. Respondent No.4/Block Education Officer issued a letter/Memo on 15.05.2025 along with list of Teachers shown to be in surplus, to be posted in other schools under rationalization scheme. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.6 has joined Govt. Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur in or after 2018, whereas, petitioner is working since 2012 after joining the post on promotion and, therefore, surplus Teacher if any in the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur would be respondent No.6 and not petitioner. Petitioner could have submitted the objection as mentioned in Annexure P-1, however, reasonable time has not been grated and only a day’s time is granted to petitioner and other Teachers to submit objection on the list of surplus Teachers and, therefore, petitioner could not submit objection before concerned authority. He submits that if appropriate time is granted to petitioner to submit objection before respondent No.4, petitioner will submit objection and a direction be issued to 3 respondent No.4 to consider objection to be raised by the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the objection. 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that, on the list of surplus Teachers, respondent No.4 has called objection, however, from the document annexed along with petition, it is not appearing that petitioner has ever submitted objection as called for. He, however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that only a day’s time was granted to submit objection. He further submits that the list of surplus Teachers and objections received has been forwarded to respondent No.3 for consideration, if petitioner submits objection before respondent No.3 and respondent No.4, appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 4. Annexure P-1 is the Memo along with list of surplus Teachers. Perusal of Memo (Annexure P-1) shows that only a day’s time was granted to the Teachers to submit objection, which is a too short time for Teachers like petitioner. If respondent No.3 was keenly interested to consider objection to be submitted by the Teachers named in the list as mentioned in Annexure P- 1, he would have granted sufficient time, at least period of one week to the Teachers named therein to submit their objections which has not been granted and, therefore, in the aforementioned facts of the case, I consider it fit to allow the prayer of the petitioner to grant some more time to submit representation/ objection to Annexure P-1 and to raise ground as raised in this writ petition, to be considered and decided by respondent No.4. 4 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the State submit that as the time to file objection has already been elapsed, now the proceedings is pending before respondent No.3 for passing appropriate orders. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to submit objection pursuant to Memo (Annexure P- 1) before respondents No. 3 & 4 within a period of 3 days from today and if such objection is submitted by petitioner, respondents No. 3 & 4 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law before issuing final list of posting of Teachers based on rationalization scheme. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to respondents No. 3 & 4. 8. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed off. 9. Consequently, IA No.2, application for hearing during summer vacation and IA No.3, application for urgent hearing also stand disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen