1 2025:CGHC:35517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7636 of 2025 1 - Komal Ram Dhruw S/o Late Gyanik Ram Dhruw Aged About 55 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Kodebod, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Joint Director Education Division Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Collector District Dhamtari, C.G. 5 - District Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, C.G. 6 - Block Education Officer Block Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 08.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Kodebod, Dist- Dhamtari to SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.25 11:55:53 +0530 2 Govt. Middle School, Khamhariya, Block- Tilda, Dist- Raipur under the rationalization instructions. The petition is also against the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the representation made by the petitioner before the District Level Rationalization Committee has been rejected. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 08.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 5173/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2025 with the direction to the petitioner to make his fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and the committee shall decide the same within the stipulated time frame. Pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2025, the petitioner made his representation on 24.06.2025 and after hearing him, the order dated 27.06.2025 has been passed by which his representation has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (LB)(T-Cadre) and presently posted at Govt. Middle School, Kodebod, Dist- Dhamtari. Under the rationalization instruction, he was declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Khamhariya, Block- Tilda, Dist- Raipur. The petitioner is a teacher for Hindi subject whereas he has been considered as a teacher for Arts subject and after declaring him surplus, he has been posted. He would further submit that vide order dated 22.06.2013, when the petitioner was promoted, he has been considered as teacher Hindi. Had he been considered as teacher Hindi, he has not been declared surplus as per the subject rotation provided under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The representation of the petitioner has been mechanically decided without considering the status of the petitioner in 3 the school. No proper opportunity of hearing was provided to him at the time of counseling and therefore, the impugned order of his posting and order dated 27.06.2025 suffers with various material irregularities and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, would submit that the after passing of the order dated 19.06.2025 in WPS No. 5173/2025, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing and after hearing him, his representation has been considered and decided by the District Level Rationalization Committee. The petitioner cannot claim that he would not being provided sufficient opportunity at the time of counseling as while hearing his representation, he has been heard on his grievance. The claim of the petitioner is that he is the teacher Hindi and as per the subjection rotation, he could not be declared surplus as the teacher Arts could not be substantiated by the petitioner as the the petitioner has been considered as teacher Arts as per the list provided under the Rationalization Instructions in the order dated 02.06.2025, he has been considered as Teacher Panchayat while considering his representation the District Level Rationalization Committee has also found that the petitioner is a teacher Hindi and teaching Arts subject in the school. The strength of the students in the school is 95 and total 6 teachers were posted. Since the petitioner is junior most in the school, he has been declared surplus. The rationalization of the petitioner is under the strict compliance of Clause 7-B of the rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024 and his representation has been rejected. No sufficient ground would be made out by the petitioner to quash the impugned orders and therefore, the writ petition is liable to dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (LB) (T- Cadre) has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Khamhariya by the order dated 08.06.2025 issued by the District Level Rationalization Committee under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Raising his grievance, the petitioner has filed WPS No. 5173/2025 which was disposed of on 19.06.2025, directing him to make his fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and in compliance thereof, he made his representation and on 24.06.2025, he was heard on his representation by the said Committee. After considering the records of the petitioner with respect to his grievance and posting, the District Level Rationalization Committee comes into conclusion that the petitioner was posted at Middle School Kodebod and teaching Arts subject in the school. In view of the number of students in the school, there is surplus teachers and the petitioner being the junior, he has been declared surplus and has been posted under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is strict compliance of Clause 7B of the rationalization instruction and since, there was no vacant post available for teacher (LB) Arts subject in the District, he was appeared in Divisional Level counseling and thereafter the order of his posting was issued. The consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the District Level Rationalization Committee appears to be correct on the basis of facts available on the record. This Court does not find any good ground to differ with the view taken by the rationalization committee by which the representation of the petitioner is rejected. 7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident of service; the Court 5 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 sagrika