1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6972 of 2025 1 - Ashveen Kumar Kothari S/o Jhumlal Kothari Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer, Subject Chemistry, Government Higher Secondary School, Meregaon, Block Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The District Education Officer District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 3 - The Block Education Officer Block - Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohala- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 4 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Block Ambagarh Chowki, Meregaon, District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 5 - The Principal Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Block Mohala, District - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jasraj Singh Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer 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 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 19.06.2025 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.25 18:11:04 +0530 2 (Annexure P/7) and also challenged the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/3), whereby the petitioner, who is Lecturer (Chemistry) has been posted at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla, Block Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and his representation has been rejected by the respondent No.2 and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to set aside the Order No. 1327/Yuktikaran/2025-25 dated 30.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 02, issued in violation with the rationalization policy and in effect retain the petitioner to work in the Respondent No. 04 School in interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 19.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner's fresh representation had been rejected. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature, or direction, to quash the order dated 03.06.2025 by virtue of which petitioner is being transferred to Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Block Mohala, District Mohala-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Chemistry) was posted at Boys Higher Secondary School, Ambagarh Chowki, has been called for counseling on 03.06.2025 vide order dated 30.05.2025 and after 3 declaring him surplus, he has been posted at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla, Block Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki vide order dated 03.06.2025. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the posting order of the petitioner dated 03.06.2025, he had filed WPS No. 4494 of 2025 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2025 directing the petitioner to submit his fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and to appear there on 19th June, 2025 and the said committee shall take a decision in accordance with law within the stipulated period, in objective manner. After passing of the order by this Court on 13.06.2025, the petitioner moved his representation on 17.06.2025 and appeared before the committee on 19.06.2025 and thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been decided on 19.06.2025 rejecting the same. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was called for counseling on 03.06.2025 and on the same day, he has been posted at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla. No proper opportunity to raise objection has been provided to him. As per clause 7-C (1) (2) and (3) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he cannot be declared as surplus, yet he has been declared surplus and has been posted to other school. He would also submit that he is a Lecturer (Chemistry) and on the ground of less than 04 subject periods in the school, he has been declared surplus, whereas there are sufficient number of students and subject periods in the school, and therefore, declaring him surplus is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The representation of 4 the petitioner has also not been considered by the respondent No.2 in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the posting of the petitioner to Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. At Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Ambagarh-Chowki, the strength of students is 322. There were two Lecturers (Chemistry) and as per the information submitted by the Principal of the school, less than 04 subject periods for each Lecturers (Chemistry) in the school, and therefore, the petitioner being the junior, has been declared surplus and has been posted to Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla. He would also submit that at the time of counseling, on 03.06.2025, the petitioner himself has opted Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla, and therefore, he is posted there. The petitioner does not have any merit in his writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 7. The petitioner has challenged the order of posting on the ground that he is teaching more than 04 subject periods in the school and there is sufficient number of students in the school, yet he has been declared surplus, which is in violation of clause 7-C(1) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner could not demonstrate by filing sufficient documents or time-table of the school, which proves 5 that he was teaching 04 subject periods in the school. From perusal of the order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/7), it transpires that there were two Lecturers (Chemistry) working in the school, who are having less than 04 periods to each of the Lecturers (Chemistry), and therefore, the petitioner being the junior has been declared surplus. The relevant information has been submitted by the Principal of the school to the Rationalization Committee. It further transpires that the petitioner himself opted for Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohla at the time of counseling and he is posted there. It is quite vivid that the representation of the petitioner dated 17.06.2025 has rightly been considered by the District Level Rationalization Committee vide order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/7). 8. 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 6 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 dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/7) and order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/3) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved