1 2025:CGHC:33121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7068 of 2025 1 - Smt. Malti Mandavi W/o Shri Ghanshyam Mandavi Aged About 49 Years Posted As- Teacher (L.B), At- Govt. Middle School, Mahkakala, Block- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh H.Q.- Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division, Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Cum Member Secretary District Yuktiyutkaran Samiti, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 07-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1) and 24-06-2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby the petitioner has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Makhakala, District Durg, to Govt. Middle School, Lenjakhar, District Kabirdham, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 and her representation is rejected. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 12:39:53 +0530 2 “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction / directions /order / orders to the respondents to quash the impugned order dt. 07/06/2025 Annexure P/1 as well as the impugned order, dt. 24/06/2025 Annexure - P/13 issued by the respondent no. 03. b. This Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. C. May kindly be pleased to allow the cost of petition.” 2. Present is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P.S. No. 4463/2025 before this Court, challenging his posting order dated 07-06- 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13-06-2025, with a direction to make a fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, which shall decide the same within the stipulated period. The petitioner made his representation, and the committee provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 20-06-2025 and then decided the representation on 24-06-2025, rejecting the same. These two orders, dated 07-06-2025 and 24-06-2025, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (E-Cadre) and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Mahkakala. She has been declared surplus under the rationalization of teachers and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Lenjakhar. He would further submit that the teacher, who joined in the school in 2023, has been considered and the petitioner has been declared surplus. The subject-wise posts have been deleted by the notification dated 11-07-2023, and therefore, the seniority from the gradation list should be considered in the rationalization process and not 3 from the seniority from the date of their joining in the school. Her husband is also a Lecturer and has been posted at Block-Patan, District Durg, and there is a vacant post available at Govt. Middle School, Dhamna. Therefore, there is a complete violation of the rationalization instructions, and the posting order of the petitioner is arbitrary. The representation of the petitioner is also decided mechanically. There is a gross violation of rationalization instruction while considering the strength of teachers in the school. Subject rotation has also not been properly followed by the authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, and the petitioner may be permitted to remain at his earlier place of posting. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Mahkakala. The total strength of the students in the Mahkakala school was 129 and 5 teachers were required as per the rationalization instructions; however, there were 6 teachers working. There were 4 teachers for Arts subject in the school including the Headmaster. Thus, as per the subject rotation as per Clause 7(B)(5) of the rationalization instructions, the junior- most teacher, i.e. the petitioner, is declared as surplus. He would also submit that, as per Clause 7(B)(4) of the rationalization instruction, if more than one teacher in the same subject, seniority would be considered from the date of their joining the school. Therefore, the petitioner, being the junior-most in the school, has been declared surplus and posted at Lenjakhar School. All the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have been strictly followed, and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The representation of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the authorities. There is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge her posting order under the Rationalization, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 6. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (E-Cadre), has been posted to the Government Middle School, Lenjakhar, District Kabirdham, vide order dated 07-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. From the order dated 24- 06-2025, it transpires that the strength of Mahkakala school was 129, and only 5 teachers were required. As per the date of joining the school, the petitioner joined there on 25-04-2025, which is reflected in her representation dated 17-06-2025. Clause 7(8)(4) of the rationalization instructions provides that "'kkyk esa inLFk @ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnukad ds vk/kkj ij ,d gh fo"k; ds nks f'k{kd esa ls कनिष्ठतम dks vfr'ks"k ekuk tk;sxkA". In the order dated 24-06-2025, it is observed that:- "lacaf/kr ds ;qfDr;qDrdj.k ds iwoZ dk;Zjr fo|ky; 'kk- iw- ek- fo- egdkdyk] fo-[k- ikVu] ftyk nqxZ esa ntZ la[;k 129 ds eku ls dqy 5 f’k{kdksa dh vko;drk Fkh] laLFkk esa dqy 6 f’k{kd dk;Zjr FksA vr% 1 f’k{kd dks vfr'ks"k”dh x.kuk esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k gSA fo"k; gsrq fu/kkZfjr pdzkuqdze (vaxzsth] xf.kr] dyk] foKku] fgUnh ,oa mnwZ@ okf.kT;@ laLd`r) vuqlkj dh xbZ x.kuk esa iz-ik- dk fo"k; dyk ,oa vU; f’k{kd dk fo"k; dze’k% xf.kr ,oa foKku dh x.kuk esa fy[kk x;k gSA dyk ds 4 f’k{kd inLFk gksus ds dkj.k lacaf/kr fo"k; ds ,d कनिष्ठ f’k{kd dks vfr'ks"k dh lwph esa fodkl [k.M Lrjh; lfefr }kjk lfEefyr fd;k x;kA ftlesa ;kfpdkdrkZ dk uke lfEefyr gSA " 7. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the consideration of the committee is against the rationalization instructions or arbitrary. She has been considered surplus as per her date of joining in the school and has been posted at Lenjakhar school. This court does not find any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in the posting of the petitioner by declaring her surplus or rejecting her representation. 8. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 5 posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. 9. 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 Alok