1 2025:CGHC:30127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6998 of 2025 1 - Nandini Bajpai W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Bajpai Aged About 58 Years R/o A-16, Chopra Colony, Mahaveer Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat- Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 5 - The District Education Officer and The Secretary, District Yukiuktkaran Samiti, District Raipur C.G. 6 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Dharsiwa, District - Raipur C.G. 7 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Smt. Veena Dubey Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Teacher In The Govt. Middle School (Abhyas Shaala), Bti Ground, Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03-07-2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner(s) is/are challenging the impugned transfer order(s) and action of the respondents whereby the petitioner(s) has/have been declared surplus Teacher(s) and consequently transferred under Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 the Teacher Rationalization Instructions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) would submit that the petitioner has not joined at her transferred place of posting. It is further submitted that the list of surplus Teachers published by the respondents is against the rationalization instructions and the same is arbitrary as no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner(s) and if the petitioner(s) is/are not granted relief, he/she/they will suffer with irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner still wants to pursue her representation before the concerned authorities to redress her grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that after due verification of records the petitioner(s) has/have been transferred under the rationalization instructions issued by the State Government. It is further submitted that if the petitioner(s) is/are having any grievance, he/she/they may move fresh representation before the concerned District/Divisional Rationalization Committee and the Committee will take a decision on his/her/their representation(s) 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 petitioner(s) is/are directed to make fresh representation(s) before the concerned District/Divisional Rationalization Committee within a period of five days from today and thereafter the Committee shall decide the same within a further period of five days from the date of receipt of representation(s) in accordance with law in objective manner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil