1 2025:CGHC:33278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7141 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pragya Singh W/o Shri Sanjay Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Patelpara, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), Presently Posted At Middle School Thakurpur, Ambikapur, District - Surguja C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The School Education, Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Education Directorate Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education Officer Ambikapur, District -Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Block Education Officer, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Head Master Middle School Thakurpur, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Sweta Shriwastva D/o S.K. Shriwastva R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Ward No. 24, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - C.E.O. Zila Panchayat Ambikapur-Surguja District - Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.29 17:32:13 +0530 2 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/9) and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records regarding to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 on 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may also kindly be pleased to quash the transfer order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-9) and also direct the respondent no. 3 to let the petitioner continue her service at the same primary school at Thakurpur. 10.4 Cost of petition and all consequences & benefit may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB), was posted at Govt. Middle School, Thakurpur, Block Ambikapur, has been transferred to Govt. Middle School, Chorkipani, Block Mainpat vide transfer order dated 06.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the transfer order dated 06.06.2025, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 4684 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District 3 Rationalization Committee and shall appear there on 20.06.2025, who shall take a decision in accordance with law, in objective manner. After passing of the order by this Court on 16.06.2025, the petitioner moved her representation on 17.06.2025, which has been rejected by the District Rationalization Committee on 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). 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 27.06.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 01.07.2025 and therefore, she is not willing to pursue her 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. He would further submit that the other teacher Smt. Sweta Shrivastava is the graduate from Agriculture Science, but she has been appointed by the Zila Panchayat as the Teacher, Science subject. The Science and Agriculture Science are entirely different subjects and she could not be treated as Teacher (Science), yet the authorities have treated both of them as Teacher, 4 Science subject and the petitioner has been declared surplus. He would further submit that from the communication dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure P/13), the students of Agricultural Science cannot be appointed as Teacher (Science). The provisions of Rationalization Instructions have not been followed and the rotation of subjects have not been considered during the process of rationalization. There is complete violation of fairness and transparency in the Rationalization procedure adopted by the authorities. Therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner under the Rationalization Instructions as well as the order dated 27.06.2025 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 Teacher (LB) at Govt. Middle School, Thakurpur. The other teacher Smt. Sweta Sinha was also posted there as Teacher for Science subject. At Govt. Middle School, Thakurpur, there are 43 students and 06 teachers including headmaster were posted. There are two teachers for science subject were posted including the petitioner. The petitioner had joined in the school on 01.09.2008, whereas the other teacher for science subject namely Smt. Sweta Sinha had joined on 27.01.2007. As per clause 7-B(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner being the junior has been declared surplus. It is not a case that the appointment of the respondent No.6 has been challenged, but only the rationalization of the petitioner is under challenge. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner at the time of counseling as well as at the time of considering her representation. After hearing her, 5 the representation has been decided. The Rationalization of the petitioner is under strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her 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 a Teacher is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus teacher in the school and she has not been provided proper opportunity to opt the schools at the time of counseling and no transparent procedure adopted by the respondent authorities, while Rationalization process. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 Smt. Sweta Sinha is possessed the qualification of Agriculture Science and she could not be treated as Teacher (Science). From perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025, it transpires that at the time of considering the representation of the petitioner, she has been heard and the authorities have considered that there are 43 students in the schools and 06 teachers including the headmaster and the petitioner. The respondent No.6 had joined on 27.01.2007 and the petitioner had joined on 01.09.2008 and both were for Science subject. The petitioner is junior to the respondent No.6 as she joined in the school subsequently, and as per clause 7-B(4) of the Rationalization Instructions, she has been treated surplus. It is not a case, where the appointment or subject of the respondent No.6 is under challenge, but it is only the Rationalization process is under challenge. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present 6 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 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