1 2025:CGHC:33668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7190 of 2025 1 - Smt. Smita Singh W/o Shri Umesh Kumar Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), Presently Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Khaliba, Block - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The School Education Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Education Department, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Public Education Department, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 6 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Khaliba, Block - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Shickumari Singh Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Khaliba, Block - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State : Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 17.07. 202 5 1. This is second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation the writ petition filed by the petitioner against his/her transfer order after declaring surplus Teacher under the Teacher Rationalization Instructions, was disposed of on 18.06.2025 with liberty to move fresh representation, if already not made, and in turn the District/Divisional Rationalization Committee was directed to decide the same within specific time period. Now this petition has been filed after rejection of her representation vide order dated 27.06.2025. 2 2. The counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the State Government has now constituted another Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner vide notification dated 07.07.2025 for redressal of the grievances against the decision taken by the District/Divisional Rationalization Committee on the representation moved by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed his second representation on 15.07.2025 before the Committee constituted vide notification dated 07.07.2025 and therefore the Committee be directed to decide the same within stipulated time period. 3. Learned counsel for the State does not have any objection if such a direction is given to the said Committee. 4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that petitioner has already filed the second representation before the committee on 15.07.2025 and further before constitution of committee, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 02.07.2025 challenging the order dated 27.06.2025 rejecting her first representation, the committee constituted vide notification dated 07.07.2025 is directed to decide pending representation of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, no further co-ercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner shall apprise the committee about the order passed by this court within a week. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder