1 2025:CGHC:31814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5092 of 2025 1 - Smt. Snigdha Gwal W/o Manish G. Yadav Aged About 28 Years Occupation Lecturer (Zoology) Government Higher Secondary School Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School 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 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Secretary Block Rationalization Committee (Block Education Officer) Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 8 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.09 19:14:52 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 12.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Lecturer (LB-Biology) has been transferred from Higher Secondary School, Urga (Korba) to High School, Sarkheda (Mohla-Manpur) under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) as well as the impugned relieving order dated 13.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at her present place of posting i.e. government higher secondary school Urga and strict action may be taken against the respondent authorities for wrongly declaring the petitioner as surplus teacher. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Lecturer (LB-Biology), at Higher Secondary School, Urga (Korba). Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and she has been transferred. She is posted there since 2016 and senior most Lecturer (Biology) in the school. Total students of the school are 258 and Govt. Girls High School, Urga is having 77 students. After merger of Govt. Girls High School, Urga into the Higher Secondary School, Urga, there should be increase of subject periods and from 9th to 12th class, there is 08 subject periods daily. In the Biology subject, there is practical classes also. In English subject, there are two Lecturers for 06 periods, in Hindi subject, there are 02 Lecturers for 08 periods and none of the Teachers have been declared as surplus in those subjects and thereby there is violation of clause 7(C) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. He would further submit that one post of Lecturer (Biology) is still vacant at SAJES Higher Secondary School, Korba, Kohadiya and Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tuman, Block Kartala, therefore, the petitioner may be transferred there. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Higher Secondary School, Urga (Korba). Govt. High School, Urga and Govt. Higher Secondary School, Urga was running in the same campus, and therefore, both these schools are merged and after its merger, the petitioner is declared as surplus Lecturer in Biology subject as she had joined on 17.06.2016, whereas the other Lecturer (Biology) Smt. 4 Martina Rathore had joined on 04.09.2010. There are 02 other Lecturers in Science subject Smt. Sunita Halwai (Chemistry) and Firtu Ram Patel (Physics), who are also senior to the petitioner. As per the number of students, total 10 subject periods of Science is required, for which 03 Lecturers are required and out of 04 Lecturers, the petitioner being the junior most Lecturer in Science subject, she has been declared as surplus and has been transferred and relieved on 13.06.2025. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Biology) is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus Lecturer in the school, as the school is required 08 subject periods of Biology and Science and she is the senior most Lecturer (Biology) in the school. The petitioner has also claimed that after merger of the schools, the number of students would be increased and for quality of the education, more Lecturers are required. For other subjects, no other Lecturers have been declared as surplus, though they seem to be surplus. The petitioner has also claimed the violation of clause 7(C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions, which provides that, if the schools are having less number of students and 02 Lecturers are there (04 periods per Lecturer), the junior most would be treated as surplus. Clause 7(C)(1) of the Rationalization Instructions is reproduced hereinbelow:- “सात :- अतितशेष शिशक्षकों के तिन्हांकन हेतु प्रक्रियाः- क्रिकासखण्ड स्तरीय 5 सक्रि तित युक्रि!यु!करण ाले क्रिद्यालयों के अतितशेष शिशक्षकों तथा अन्य क्रिद्यालयों के अतितशेष शिशक्षकों के तिन्हांकन हेतु क्रिनम्नानुसार प्रक्रिया अपनायेगीः- C. हाई/ हायर सेके ण्डरी स्कू ल :- 1. हाई/हायर सेके ण्डरी स्कू ल ें जहां दज. संख्या बहुत क है, और हाँ एक ही क्रिषय के दो व्याख्याता काय.रत है (प्रतित व्याख्याता अध्यापन 04 कालखण्ड से क ), तो उन ें से कक्रिनष्ठत अतितशेष होगा।” 6. The further submission of the petition with respect to the violation of clause 6(6) of the Rationalization Instructions is concerned, the petitioner was noticed for counseling process, which was held on 07.06.2025, but has not opted for any school, and therefore, the school which were displayed, has been opted by other Lecturers and the name of the petitioner was forwarded for other school as per clause 6(6) of the Rationalization Instructions. The said clause 6(6) also provides that those Lecturers, who could not be adjusted in district and divisional level, their names may be forwarded to the Director, Public Instructions and who can post the surplus Lecturers after their counseling. As per the instructions submitted by the State, total 10 subject periods of Science subject is there after merger of Govt. High School, Urga and Govt. Higher Secondary School, Urga. The petitioner being the junior most in Biology subject, she has been declared as surplus, as for total 10 subject periods, only 03 Lecturers are required there. 7. The dispute involved in this case, being factual in nature, ought not to go into when the Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode 6 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. 8. 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