1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4423 of 2025 1 - Haridas Manikpuri S/o Mohandas Manikpuri Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Teacher, Government Middle School Bela Block Division Korba, District Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Divya Sahu Teacher Middle School Bela, Block Division Korba District Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Shri S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.06. 202 5 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 03-06-2025 and 05-06-2025 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from the Government Middle School, Bela, Block Korba, to Middle School Amjhar, Block Podi-Uproda, under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that vide order dated 16-02-2006, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.01 16:13:24 +0530 2 to Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and was posted at Government Middle School, Kulhariya. Vide order dated 16-07-2008, his services have been transferred from Middle School, Kulhariya to Middle School, Bela. Vide order dated 07-10-2022, he was appointed as Cluster Coordinator and remained posted at Middle School, Bela. Under the rationalization instructions, at the time of the first round of counselling on 29-05-2025, the Respondent No. 7 was declared as a surplus teacher in the Arts subject. In the second round of counselling held on 03-06-2025, the petitioner was declared as surplus teacher in the Arts subject and has transferred the services of the petitioner from Middle School, Bela, to Middle School Amjhar vide order dated 03-06-2025. On 04-06-2025, the petitioner moved his representation to the Respondent No. 4, but the same has not been considered and ex-parte relieved on 05-06- 2025, which is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having a Hindi Literature subject in his graduation, and he should be treated as a Teacher (Hindi), but he has been treated as a Teacher (Arts) and has been declared as a surplus. Had he been treated as a teacher Hindi, he would not have been declared surplus. The subject of graduation of the teachers should be considered while considering their rationalization as the subject teacher, as per the notification dated 05-03-2019 issued by the State Government. The impugned transfer order of the petitioner is against the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Education Code, 2022. He would also submit that Clauses 7(B)(4) and 7(B)(5) of the rationalization instructions have been violated by the authorities. The total students in the Middle School Bela is 65, and the 3 requirement is 1 Head Master and 3 teachers. The Headmistress of the School Smt. Maheshwari Ratre is from the Arts subject. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Teacher LB, is from the English subject; there is no teacher in the Maths subject, and Shailey Shrivastava is from the Science subject. The petitioner is having Hindi Literature subject in his graduation, and therefore, he is eligible to remain there and is not surplus. The petitioner is declared as surplus teacher in Arts subject. He would further submit that in the first round of counselling, the Respondent No. 7 was declared as surplus in Arts subject, but in the second round of counselling on 03-06-2025, instead of declaring the Respondent No. 7 as surplus in Arts subject, the petitioner has been declared as surplus in Arts subject whereas the petitioner belongs to Hindi subject. The petitioner raised his objection at the time of counselling, but it was not given any heed. Further, though the petitioner was directed to join his service at transferred place up to 16- 06-2025, but he has been ex-parte relieved on 05-06-2025. Hence, this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Teaching and Administrative) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, were notified on 05-03-2019, Schedule-I of which provides minimum qualification for Assistant Teachers and Teachers. One of the minimum qualifications for Teachers is graduation and 2-year Diploma in Education. Schedule- I also provides the subjects of graduation as an essential subject in graduation. The other qualifications are also prescribed. The teachers cannot be identified by their subject in graduation, but they could be 4 identified by their subject which they are teaching in the school. The petitioner himself claimed to be a teacher of the Hindi subject because he has Hindi Literature in his graduation as one of the subjects, which is not correct. The roster given in clause 7(B)(5) has been duly complied with and the petitioner is declared surplus in the Arts subject. The roster for the rationalization has been duly complied with as per the set-up and availability of teachers in the school. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process of rationalization of the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the subject teacher of Hindi as the Hindi Literature was one of the subjects in his graduation and therefore, he should be considered as a Teacher of Hindi subject and as per roster, he may not be treated as surplus teacher at Government Middle School, Bela. There is no definition of “Subject Teacher” in the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The literal meaning of Subject Teacher is that the teachers who are teaching the particular subject in the school may be called as subject teacher. The appointment of the petitioner is not for any particular subject. He may have a subject of Hindi Literature in his graduation, but he cannot be considered as a teacher (Hindi) only for the reason that he had Hindi Literature subject in his graduation. Though rationalization instructions dated 11-07-2014 are not applicable in the present case but support can be taken from Clause-2 of the said instructions dated 11-07-2014 which clarifies the meaning of “subject teacher”. Clause-2 of the 5 rationalization instructions dated 07-11-2014, which is annexed with the petition at page No. 28, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2- ऐसे शिक्षक जि नके स्नातक के विषय विद्यालय में अध्यापन कराये ाने ाले विषय से शिन्न है परन्तु शिक्षक द्वारा अंग्रे ी संस्कृ त, गशि'त, विज्ञान ( ीविज्ञान, ौतितक रसायनास्त्र) अध्ययन विकये ाने ाले विषय में स्नातकोत्तर उपाति/ प्राप्त की गई हो तो उनके स्नातकोत्तर के विषय के आ/ार पर त5मान पदस्थ ाला में विषय शिक्षक मान्य विकया ाये एं अतितेष न माना ाये। " 7. It is not the situation here that the petitioner did his post-graduation in Hindi Literature. The consideration of the subject teacher is the subject in which the teachers are teaching in the school at the relevant point in time, and not the subject of their graduation. Therefore, the petitioner has been considered as “Teacher (Arts)” and declared as a surplus teacher at Middle School, Bela. 8. The petitioner as well as respondent No.7 both were considered as Teacher (Arts) in the school. Clause 10(7) of the rationalization instruction dated 02-08-2024 provides the process of counselling and preference for calling teachers for rationalization. As per Clause 10(7) of the instruction dated 02-08-2024, firstly, those teachers are to be called whose tenure is remaining less than 2 years; thereafter the female teachers are to be given priority. By giving priority to Respondent No.7 being a female teacher, the petitioner has been declared as surplus teacher at Middle School, Bela, in which this court does not find any illegality or irregularity calling interference with the impugned order. 9. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant the general powers of employer 6 provided under the statutory service rules i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. 10. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala-fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved malafide, lack of competence of the officer passing transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder