1 2025:CGHC:26087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5350 of 2025 1 - Kalpana Tiwari W/o Shri Dinesh Tiwari Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School, Bidbida, Block Pathariya Chowki, District - Mungeli (C.G.). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Joint Director Education Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Mungeli (C.G.)., District - Mungeli (C.G.). 5 - The District Education Officer Mungeli (C.G.), District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer Parthariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5507 of 2025 1 - Swadha Dubey W/o. Ajeet Kumar Dubey Aged About 40 Years Lecturer (L.B.), Chemistry, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chichirda, Presently Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bharni, Block- Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 19:02:18 +0530 2 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 20-06-2025 1. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned transfer order and action of the respondents whereby the petitioners have declared surplus Teacher and consequently transferred under the Teacher Rationalization Instructions. 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. He 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 3 petitioners are directed to make fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalization Committee within a period of five days from today, and appear before the said Committee on 26th June, 2025. Thereafter, the Committee shall decide the representation of the petitioners within seven days from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with law in objective manner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok