1 2025:CGHC:22541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4097 of 2025 1 - Smt. Saroj Bhuarya W/o Shri Milind Bhuarya Aged About 56 Years Post- Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. R/o New Khandelwal Colony, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner/ Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Principal Government Hr. Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Pratibha Khaparde Lecturer (L.B.), Office Of The Principal AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.06 11:54:41 +0530 2 Government Hr. Secondary School, Shankarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/06/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 30/05/2025 passed by the respondent No.3 Annexure P-1 and also set aside the list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4 dated 15/05/2025 Annexure P-2 to the extent of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.4 issued the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees and placed the petitioner in the list instead of respondent No.6 without affording any opportunity to object the same. He further submits that there is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6, but still respondent No.4 while issuing the impugned list, has placed the petitioner as a supernumerary lecturer instead of respondent No.6. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has granted opportunity to raise objection 3 which she has already availed and against which, the order dated 30/05/2025 has been passed with detailed explanation as to why respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner herein and respondent No.6 was not placed in the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4 herein. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has already availed opportunity to raise her objection on 29/05/2025 before respondent No.3, which has been rejected vide order dated 30/05/2025 by giving detailed explanation as to why respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner herein and respondent No.6 was not placed in the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4. As such, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order impugned dated 30/05/2025 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as the impugned list of supernumerary/atishesh employees issued by respondent No.4 and accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Amardeep/Ankit