1 2025:CGHC:29383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6749 of 2025 1 - Chanda Rani Singh W/o Rakesh Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Kolhuwa, Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department (E) And (T) Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Public Education, Indravati Bhavan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh District Education Officer Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Directorate Public Instruction Surajpur Division Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.08 18:02:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the declaration of her name as surplus teacher under the rationalization and claimed the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, quashing the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annex. P/1) and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue at the present place of posting. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of excess teacher so far as it relates to the Petitioner. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, the name of the petitioner is declared as surplus teacher at Government Primary School, Gondpara, Dedri, whereas the instruction of rationalization has not been followed, and without considering the relevant factors, she has been declared as surplus teacher. The petitioner was pressurised to opt for single-teacher school, whereas there is a vacancy in the 3 teacherless school. Therefore, the entire process of rationalization of the petitioner is tainted and arbitrary, and the same is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that though no transfer order of the petitioner is issued but she has been declared as a surplus teacher and may be posted anywhere. Therefore, she has filed the instant petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes and submits that the petitioner has not challenged and order of her transfer and she only apprehends that she may be transferred. He would further submit that from the document dated 03-06-2025, Annexure P-1, it is not clear that she has been declared as a surplus teacher subject to any order passed pursuant to that declaration. The petition is premature and is not maintainable as there is no transfer order against the petitioner. Further, there is no violation of any condition of the rationalization instruction that warrants interference, and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the declaration dated 03-06-2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, it reveals that it is only a declaration made by the petitioner at the time of counseling i.e. on 03-06-2025. Whether the petitioner is declared as a surplus teacher or not, there is no document annexed with the writ petition by the petitioner. There is no transfer order either challenged in the writ 4 petition, nor any documents annexed in it. Except the declaration dated 03-06-2025 and rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, no other documents are annexed with the petition that require consideration. 6. I do not find any scope of interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved