1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6930 of 2025 1 - Ahmed Ansari S/o Shri Mubarak Ansari Aged About 30 Years Working As Lecturer (Commerce) Government Higher Secondary School Jamgawan, Block Lakhanpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Block Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - The Secretary Rationalization Committee Cum District Education Officer, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Jamgawan, Block- Lakhanpur Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Santosh Singh Working As Lecturer (Commerce), Government Higher Secondary School Jamgawan, Block - Lakhanpur Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.22 11:51:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Commerce), presently working at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan (Lakhanpur) has been posted to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Thakurtola, Chhuikhadan under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1), issued by the respondent authority. 10.3 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, the petitioner is a Lecturer (Commerce) and she has been posted to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Thakurtola after declaring him surplus at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan. The respondent No.8 is junior to the petitioner, but due to the mistake committed by the Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan (respondent No.7), in the details furnished, the date of joining of the respondent No.8 is shown as 02.12.2016 instead of 21.12.2023. The petitioner had joined in the school on 20.03.2021. The respondent No.8 has been transferred from 3 Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan as Incharge Block Education Officer, Premnagar vide order dated 30.09.2022 and he joined there. Thereafter, he again joined at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan on 21.12.2023, but the Principal has sent the status report mentioning the date of joining of the respondent No.8 is 02.12.2016. From the date of their respective joining in the school, the petitioner is senior and the respondent No.8, being the junior, should have been declared surplus. He would refer to the daily attendance register of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan (Annexure P/4) to demonstrate that the respondent No.8 had joined in the school on 21.12.2023. He would also refer to the order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/6) and details of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan available in UDISE portal (Annexure P/8) and also details of filled up and vacant posts of Lecturers of Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan. He would further submit that in the details furnished by the Principal (page 42 of the writ petition), the date of joining in the school is shown as 02.12.2016. He would further submit that the petitioner has made a representation on 07.04.2025 for correction of the discrepancies in the record with respect to date of joining of the respondent No.8 in the school as 21.12.2023 instead of 02.12.2016. He again made his representation on 05.05.2025, 07.05.2025, 02.06.2025 and 09.06.2025, but no action has been taken on his representations. He would also submit that there is no vacant post sanctioned at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Thakurtola for Lecturer (Commerce) and there is no student in Commerce subject also, therefore, the impugned order is against the Rationalization 4 Instructions and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the posting of the petitioner is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is no violation of any procedure prescribed for the same. Considering the data sent by the Principal of the concerned school, the date of joining of the Lecturers have been considered for determination of their surplus. He would further submit that the respondent No.8 was transferred to Premnagar as Incharge Block Education Officer, but he was not assigned any charge there. Thereafter, after the litigation in WPS No. 7762 of 2022 and 8021 of 2022 decided on 23.11.2022, the transfer of the respondent No.8 was reconsidered and he was sent back to his original place of posting i.e. Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan and he rejoined there on 21.12.2023, however, he was there in the school since 02.12.2016. Considering the original date of his posting in the school, the Principal has also submitted a detail of the Lecturers in the school and as per their date of joining in the school, the petitioner is declared surplus, as he joined in the school on 20.03.2021. He would also submit that there was a sanctioned post of Lecturer (Commerce) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Thakurtola, but in absence of any Lecturer (Commerce), the students are not taking admission in the school and it is only after availability of the Lecturer (Commerce) in the school, the admission could be started. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the posting of the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 on the ground that he has joined in the school on 20.03.2021 and the respondent No.8 has joined on 21.12.2023 and therefore, the respondent No.8 should be declared surplus in the school. From the documents as well as pleadings made by the petitioner, it transpires that the respondent No.8 had initially joined in the school on 02.12.2016. Vide order dated 30.09.2022, the respondent No.8 was made Incharge Block Education Officer and posted at Premnagar and after passing of the orders in WPS No. 7762 of 2022 and 8021 of 2022 filed by the respective parties, the order dated 30.09.2022 with respect to posting of the respondent No.8 was cancelled vide order dated 19.04.2023 and he rejoined in the school on 21.12.2023 and continued there at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jamgawan on his original status. It is not that the respondent No.8 has been re-transferred from Premnagar to Jamgawan, whereas his transfer order dated 30.09.2022 has been cancelled as a consequence thereof, he was sent back to his original place of posting, where he rejoined on 21.12.2023, which amounts to continuation of his service there since 02.12.2016. So far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned, it is for the authorities who has to examine the relevant records and to pass necessary orders in accordance with the necessary rules and circulars, but the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not be sufficient to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025. 6 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 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 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved