1 2025:CGHC:25244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4964 of 2025 1 - Pushplata Shukla W/o Radhey Shyam Shukla Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Nagoi, Block Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Jyoti Navrang W/o Ashok Kumar Navrang Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Chorbhattikala, Block- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.19 10:18:57 +0530 2 WPS No. 5013 of 2025 1 - Smt. Anjana Tirkey W/o Shri Anil Kumar Tirkey Aged About 43 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Khaira, Development Block Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Joint Director Joint Director Office, Bilaspur Division, Ghodadana School, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur Old Composite Building, In Front Of Collectorate Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer, Bilha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitashva Singh on behalf of Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned transfer order and action of the respondents whereby the petitioners have been declared surplus Teacher and consequently transferred under the Teacher Rationalization Instructions. 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that list of surplus Teachers published by the respondents are against the rationalization instructions, and the same is arbitrary as no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, and if the petitioners are not granted interim relief, they will suffer with irreparable loss. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that after due verification of records, the petitioners have been transferred under the rationalization instructions issued by the State Government. Learned State counsel would further submit that if the petitioners are having any grievance, they may move fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalization Committee, and the Committee will take a decision on their representation in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners are directed to make fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalization Committee within a period of 05 days from today, and appear before the said Committee on 24th June, 2025. Thereafter, the Committee shall decide the representation of the petitioner within 07 days from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with law, in objective manner. Till decision on the representation is communicated to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order issued under Teacher Rationalization Instructions, so far as petitioner is concerned, be kept in abeyance. 4 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika