1 2025:CGHC:35631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7597 of 2025 1 - Lokesh Kumar Bhaskar S/o Lacchindar Ram Bhaskar Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Gadhiyapara Block Narharpur District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh - 494335 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of School Education Government of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhat- tisgarh. 2 - Joint Director Education Division Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Collector Complex District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer DEO Office District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattis- garh. 5 - Block Education Officer Block Narharpur District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattis- garh. 6 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) President Of Block Level Committee Block Narharpur District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Devashish Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Shri Suyash Dhar, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.07. 202 5 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 05.06.2025 whereby the petitioner, working as Assistant Teacher (LB) and posted at Govt. Primary School Gadhiyapara, Block Narharpur, has been posted to Pri- mary School Rajamunda, Block Koylibeda under the rationalization instruc- tions dated 02.08.2024. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that posting of the petitioner is in complete violation of rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the circular dated 26.05.2025 by which the Directorate of Public Instructions issue a direction to inform about total strength of students and teachers posted in the schools as on 31st March, however, the total strength of schools as on 31st March has not been considered. Another Teacher Kusum Deshmukh was the junior most teacher in the school and instead of petitioner She (Kusum Deshmukh) ought to have been considered surplus. Therefore, the petitioner’s posting at Primary School Rajamunda suffers from violation of provisions of rationalization in- struction and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would sub- mit that the petitioner is junior most teacher in the school. Kusum Deshmukh joined in the school on 05.04.2025 and was on probation. As per clause-10.6 of the rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024 the teachers who were on probation cannot be rationalized and thereafter considering the total strength of students in the school as well as required teachers there, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at different school. There is no violation of any instructions of rationalization and the writ petition is there- fore liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the circular dated 26.05.2025 has not been considered by the authorities by which the details of teachers up to 31st March was directed to be informed for rationalization. Ms. Kusum Deshmukh joined the school on 05.04.2025 and was on probation. As per clause-10.6 of the rationalization instructions, she was exempted from ratio- nalization and therefore as on 31st March the available teachers in the school have been informed for their rationalization and the petitioner being junior 3 teacher in the school have been declared surplus. Further, from the docu- ment annexed with the petition at page No.36 it transpires that only the Headmaster and Ms. Kusum Deshmukh remained there at Primary School Gadhiyapara after posting of the petitioner to Primary School Rajamunda. The Headmaster of the school also cannot be disturbed under the rationaliza- tion instruction dated 02.08.2024. Therefore, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 by which the petitioner has been posted at Primary School, Rajamunda. 6. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided under the statutory service rules, ie. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in ad- ministrative 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 employ- ees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public inter- est and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post an- other person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an em- ployee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337, 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 does not find any scope of interference in this petition. 7. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circum- stances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge 4 inder