1 2025:CGHC:40013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8202 of 2025 1 - Deen Dayal Malekar S/o Mr. Govind Lal Malekar Aged About 49 Years Posted At Teacher Local Body, Govt. Upper Primary School, Bharritola, Block- Dondi, Distt. Balod 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 C.G. 3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee, Distt- Balod C.G. 4 - District Education Officer, Distt- Balod C.G. 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, Distt- Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 07-06- 2025 and 27-06-2025, whereby the petitioner has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Bharritola-36, District Balod, to Govt. Middle School, Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 12:39:51 +0530 2 “1. issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or like writ by quashing/setting aside the impugns order dated 7/6/25 and 27/6/25 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. Govt. Upper Primary School, Bharritola, Block- Dondi, Distt. Balod CG as he was work-ing before declaring and passing an order of Surplus under the Rationalization policy. 3 Quash/Set aside the Impugned Yuktiyuktakaran Policy and all consequential orders issued on the basis of Yuktiyuktakaran Policy. 4) 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. Present is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P.S. No. 4771/2025 before this Court, challenging his posting order dated 07-06- 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16-06-2025, with a direction to make a fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, which shall decide the same within the stipulated period. The petitioner made his representation, and the committee provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 23-06-2025 and then decided the representation on 27-06-2025, rejecting the same. These two orders, dated 07-06-2025 and 27-06-2025, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (T-Cadre) (Arts) and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Bharritola- 36. He has been declared surplus under the rationalization of teachers and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Chilhati. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (Arts), but he has been considered as a Teacher (Hindi) and has been declared surplus. In his service book, he is a Teacher (Arts), and he has been promoted as Teacher (Arts). There is a 3 gross violation of rationalization instruction while considering the strength of teachers in the school. Subject rotation has also not been properly followed by the authorities. His representation has been rejected by considering that in his graduation, his subject is Hindi. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to remain at his earlier place of posting. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Bharritola-36. The strength of students in the Bharritola-36 School was 60, and total 05 teachers were working. The petitioner, being the Teacher (Hindi), had joined in the School on 06-12-2022 and as per his date of joining in the school, he is junior. As per Clause 7(B)(4) of the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024, the junior teacher of the same subject would be declared surplus, and therefore, as per subject rotation, he has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Chilhati. All the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have been strictly followed, and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been transferred. the representation of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the authorities. There is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge his posting order under the Rationalization, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 6. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (T-Cadre), has been transferred to the Government Middle School, Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki, vide order dated 07-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner has been considered as a Teacher (Hindi) and has been posted on the ground that he is junior to the other Teacher (Hindi), as the petitioner joined the School on 06-12-2022. As per the strength of the 4 students in the school, the list of 03 surplus teachers of the Hindi subject was issued by the District Level Rationalization Committee. Since, only 02 vacant posts of Teacher (Hindi) were available in the District, the name of the third teacher was referred to the Divisional level Committee, and thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Govt. Middle School, Chilhati. The petitioner could not demonstrate that his posting was for the (Arts) subject or that he had been promoted in the Arts subject, and no documents have been filed to that effect. This court does not find any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in the posting of the petitioner by declaring him surplus or rejecting his representation. 7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. 8. 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 Alok