1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6683 of 2025 1 - Smt. Menka Sahu W/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years At Present Posted As Teacher (L.B.) And At Government Middle School, Shanti Nagar, Block Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Lok Shikshan, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Cum President District Level Rationalization, Committee, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum President Block Level Rationalization Committee, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Education Officer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.23 13:24:45 +0530 2 08/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the office of District Education Officer, Durg for her joining at the office of District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon and the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set- aside the impugned relieving order dated 09-06-2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the rationalization proceeding in respect of petitioner and she may be allowed to give her service at present place of posting i.e. Government Middle School, Shanti Nagar, Block Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 13.10.2008 and was posted to Govt. Middle School, Devri, Janpad Panchayat Gunderdehi. Her services were regularized by the order dated 19.10.2011, passed by Zila Panchayat, Durg. Vide order dated 22.08.2019, she has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar Bhilai, District Durg and she was relieved from Govt. Middle School, Devri on 03.09.2019. Presently, the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Khedamara for teaching work and another junior teacher was posted at Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar. Her juniors should have been declared surplus, whereas the petitioner was declared surplus in the school, which is against the 3 Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her relieving for the office of District Education Officer is also bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted by him that on 20.06.2025, the District Education Officer, Durg has cancelled the earlier order dated 15.10.2019, by which she was directed to be posted at Middle School, Khedamara for teaching and the petitioner was directed to appear in her transferred place of posting i.e. Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar. In compliance of the order dated 20.06.2025, the petitioner had joined at Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai on 25.06.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the petitioner had joined at Govt. Middle School, Khedamara on 06.09.2019 and one Smt. Basanti Swarnkar had joined in the school on 11.02.2020. As per the strength of the students at Khedamara school, 04 teachers were required, but total 07 teachers were posted including the headmaster and as per the subject rotation provided under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, Smt. Basanti Swarnkar was declared surplus. When she made representation that the present petitioner is temporarily engaged for teaching work in the school, then in place of Smt. Basanti Swarnkar, the petitioner has been declared surplus and she has been relieved for her substantive place of posting i.e. Govt. Middle School, Hardi, Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. There is no infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 4 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, whereby she has been relieved for her joining at the office of District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon. From the documents and instructions submitted by the petitioner as well as the State counsel, the petitioner though was transferred for Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar vide order dated 22.08.2019, but from the order dated 20.06.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Durg it transpires that she was posted for teaching work at Middle School, Khedamara vide order dated 15.10.2019. from the instructions submitted by the State, it also transpires that the petitioner was declared surplus at Khedamara school, because she was not posted there against the regular post of teacher. Vide order dated 20.06.2025, the earlier order dated 15.10.2019 was cancelled and she was directed to appear in her transferred place of posting i.e. Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar. Since, after declaring her surplus, she was posted at Govt. Middle School, Hardi, Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, she has been relieved for giving her joining at the office of District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon vide impugned order dated 09.06.2025. Though, the petitioner had submitted that she has joined at Govt. Middle School, Shanti Nagar on 25.06.2025, but it is for the authorities concerned to consider the place of posting and her joining. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of her relieving. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the 5 public interest and in administrative exigency. 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. 7. 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 dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved