1 2025:CGHC:33276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7136 of 2025 1 - Villiam Prakash S/o Chandra Prakash Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher L.B, Govt. Primary School, Salka, Block- Manendragarh Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G 2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur 3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G 4 - District Education Officer Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 25.06.2025 (Annexure VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.29 17:31:17 +0530 2 P/5) and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “In view of the above fact and grounds mention above, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to:- 1) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or like writ by quashing/setting aside the impugns order dated 2/6/25 Annexure P/2 and 25/6/25 Annexure P/5 issued by respondent no. 5. 2) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or like writ by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work at the present place only i.e. Government Primary School Salka, Block Manendragarh as he was working before declaring and passing an order of Surplus under the Rationalization policy. 3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher was posted at Primary School, Salka, Block Manendragarh, has been transferred to Primary School, Pateriyapara (Ghatai), Block Bharatpur vide transfer order dated 02.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 02.06.2025, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 5527 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Rationalization Committee, who shall take a decision in accordance with law, in objective manner. After passing of the order by this Court 3 on 20.06.2025, passed in WPS No. 5527 of 2025, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the District Rationalization Committee on 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/5). 4. The State Government vide its notification No. GENCOR- 35010/1738/2025-GAD-5, dated 07.07.2025, constituted a Divisional Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representation of the Teachers/Lecturers, but after passing of the order dated 25.06.2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue his remedies before the said Divisional Committee and argued the case on merits, therefore, the order has been passed on merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has illegally declared as surplus and no proper counseling was done, even after passing of the order by this Court. The authorities have acted in most arbitrary manner and had not given any heed to the grievance of the petitioner. No proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner at the time of counseling. There is no provision in clause 10.6 that the teachers, who are on probation, shall be excluded, but it is only written that, they will not be counted as surplus, whereas in clause 10.5, it has specifically been mentioned that the teachers who are differently abled, shall not be counted and after excluding them, the other junior teachers would be taken into consideration. The seniority of the teachers has not been considered. The entire teacherless/single teacher schools have not been disclosed and the counseling has been done against the existing setup of the school. 4 Therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner under the Rationalization Instructions as well as the order dated 25.06.2025 are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Salka, where total 26 students are there. As per clause 7-A(2) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, two teachers are permissible there including headmaster. Since, 03 teachers were working including the headmaster, the petitioner being the junior has been declared surplus as per clause 7- A(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The rationalization of the petitioner is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions and on 25.06.2025, in presence of the petitioner and after hearing him, his representation has been decided. Sufficient opportunity has been provided to him at the time of initial counseling and also at the time of making his representation on 25.06.2025, therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality, either in the rationalization of the petitioner or in the order dated 25.06.2025 and his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 8. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher is claiming that he should not be treated as surplus teacher in the school and he has not been provided proper opportunity to opt the schools at the time of 5 counseling and no transparent procedure adopted by the respondent authorities, while Rationalization process. From perusal of the order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/5), it transpires that the petitioner was present at the time of hearing of her representation and in her presence, the order has been passed. The authorities have considered that only 26 students were there in Primary School, Salka and as per clause 7-A(2) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, only two teachers are required there and the other teacher is on probation there, the petitioner has been declared as surplus. The teacher, who is on probation, cannot be declared surplus as provided under clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 9. 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 6 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. 10. 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 ved