1 2025:CGHC:37515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7805 of 2025 1 - Smt. Arti Rai D/o Late Shri Kaushal Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Lecturer, Subject Sanskrit, Posted At Government High School Madanpur, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction, Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C- Block, Indiravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Education Department Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Secretary, Block Rationalization Committee, Block Education Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Secretary, Block Rationalization Committee, Block Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Principal, Government High School Madanpur, Block Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 For State/Respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 31-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at Government High School Madanpur, Block-Bilha, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) or post the petitioner at Government Higher Secondary school Lingyadih, or Higher Secondary school Tilak Nagar which are having the vacant post of sanskrit teacher which are near to the place of residing of the petitioner and strict action may be taken against the respondent authorities for wrongly declaring the petitioner as surplus teacher. 10.3 That, 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 along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is a Lecturer (Sanskrit) is presently posted at High School Madanpur, Block Bilha and vide order dated 04-06-2025 (Annexure-P/1) she has been posted at High School Jogipur, Block Kota under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. He would further submit that the petitioner had joined on 10-10- 2019 at the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur and she was relieved for High School Madanpur after two months, whereas, the other lecturer Mr. Arun Dubey had joined after the joining of the petitioner on 18-11-2019. He 3 being the junior should have been declared surplus, but ignoring the seniority the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at High School Jogipur which is gross violation of the Rationalization Instructions. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from pelotic liner syndrome in spinal region and it would be very difficult for her to move frequently to place of posting, therefore, the impugned order of her posting (Annexure-P/1) may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner had joined at the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur on 10-10-2019, but she has been relieved for High School Madanpur after two months from the joining at the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur, whereas, the other teacher Mr. Arun Dubey had joined at school on 18-11-2019. The seniority for declaring surplus is to be counted from the date of joining in the school and not from the date of joining in the office of District Education Officer as provided under clause 7 B 04 of the Rationalization Instructions. She would further submit that the personal difficulty on the ground of ailment of petitioner is to be considered by the authorities concerned for which she has already made her representation. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground for quashing the impugned order of posting of the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The only ground raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition that she being the senior to one Mr. Arun Dubey in the school should not be declared surplus. The claim of the petitioner that she joined at the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur on 10-10-2019 and after about two months she has been relieved for Govt. High School Madanpur and thereafter she joined there, whereas, the other lecturer Sanskrit Mr. Arun Dubey has joined in the 4 school on 18-11-2019. The petitioner has not disclosed any specific date of her joining, though it is available to her. From the contents of the writ petition as well as the representation it can very well consider that the other lecturer Mr. Arunn Dubey had joined on 18-11-2019 and the petitioner had joined after about two months of 10-10-2019 which comes in the month of December, 2019 and thus, undisputedly the petitioner had joined in Govt. School Madanpur after joining of Mr. Arun Dubey and she is junior to Mr. Arun Dubey in the school. 6. Clause 7 B 04 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 reads as under: “04- 'kkyk esa inLFk@dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnukad ds vk/kkj ij ,d gh fo"k; ds nks f’k{kd esa ls dfu"Bre dks vfr’ks"k ekuk tkosxk” 7. Since the petitioner being junior in the school from the date of their respective joining she has been declared surplus as provided under clause 7 B 04 of the Rationalization Instructions. Though the petitioner has claimed that she is suffering from pelotic liner syndrome in spinal region and certain medical documents have also been annexed in the writ petition, but in her representation there is no mention about her ailment. Even otherwise, the ground ailment may be considered before the authority concerned while considering the representation of the employee. 8. 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 5 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. 9. 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, I do not find any scope of interference through the present petition and the present writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil