1 2025:CGHC:27862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6139 of 2025 1 - Smt. Seema Prasad W/o Anil Kumar Ranjan Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Teacher (L.B.) (Math) R/o- E.W.S. Housing Board, Kohka, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer District- Durg, Chhattisgarh/ Member Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning her name in VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.26 18:42:12 +0530 2 the list of surplus Teachers (Maths) issued by the office of District Education Officer, Durg, dated 31.05.2025 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record. 10.2 This That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-P/3) in respect of the petitioner and also to quash the List of excess teacher/Notice of Counseling dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure-P/4) with respect to petitioner further be pleased to declare the merger policy (Annexure-P/5) dated 02/08/2024 as illegal and void ab initio. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court be further Pleased to pass Such order in Favour of the petitioner against the respondent as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances. 10.4 Costs of the Petition may be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is posted as Teacher (LB) Maths, at Govt. Middle School, Kosa Nagar, however, her name has been declared as surplus Teacher and a list has been prepared on 31.05.2025, by which she has been called on 02.06.2025 for counseling process. The name of the petitioner has been considered as surplus Teacher ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as also the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner is posted at Govt. Middle School, Vrindanagar, where there is no excess Teachers. There is violation of conditions of merger policy of the schools and the junior to the petitioner has not been declared as surplus Teacher and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. It 3 is also submitted that the petitioner is also challenging the Merger Policy, dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P/5). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has been called for counseling and from the documents annexed with the petition, it has not been shown that she has been transferred from her present place of posting. Merely declaring the petitioner as surplus Teacher, would not give her any cause of action to challenge the list of surplus Teachers. The Rationalization Instructions is meant to give effect to mandate of fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and also under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. There is no proper pleading in the petition, as to how the Rationalization Instructions is void ab initio, therefore, the same cannot be considered in the present petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) Maths and posted at Govt. Middle School, Vrindanagar vide order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) has been declared as surplus Teacher, whose name is find place in the list prepared by the office of District Education Officer, Durg, which is annexed with the petition at page 16, and she was called for counseling on 02.06.2025. As stated by the petitioner that there is no transfer order issued against her till date, and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no cause of action arose in favour of the 4 petitioner to challenge her status as surplus Teacher. The dispute involved in this case, being factual in nature, ought not to go into when the Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode of consideration for rationalization. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 6. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved