1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7732 of 2025 1 - Smt. Binda Ghritlahare W/o Shri Sidh Ram Ghritlahare Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 276, Gayakwad Para, Jamrao District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of School Education Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Deppartment Of Education Division Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Collector District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - District Education Officer District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 8 - Block Education Officer Block Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 9 - Mr. K.K. Patel Teacher Govt. Middle School, Jamrao Tahsil Patan District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.13 19:07:17 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1) and 07.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) as the same is passed in violation of the yuktiyuktkaran policy. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to direct the respondent authorities not to consider the petitioner as surplus teacher and direct to consider respondent no. 9 as a surplus teacher and transfer him in place of the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly hold that the entire counseling process has been conducted by the respondent authorities in violation of the Yuktiyuktkaran policy. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & just in the facts 3 and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had challenged her posting order dated 07.06.2025, in WPS No. 4756 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2025, directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalisation Committee, who shall decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, in objective manner. The petitioner had approached before the District Level Rationalisation Committee and on 27.06.2025, after hearing the petitioner, the said District Level Committee has passed the order on 01.07.2025, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 3. When a specific query has been raised, as to why the petitioner has not approached before the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee as constituted by the State Government vide notification dated 07.07.2025, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, if an observation is being made by this Court that, the representation of the petitioner would be decided by the said committee, in objective manner, the petitioner is ready to go before the committee, but the committee is not passing any order on merits and the committee is dismissing all the representations. Therefore, this Court may pass the order on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner, who is presently posted at Middle School, Jamrao, District Durg, has been posted under the Rationalisation Instructions dated 4 02.08.2024 to Govt. Middle School, Birkona, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham. The petitioner was considered as a Teacher (Hindi) at the time of merger, vide order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/4), whereas at the time of rationalisation, she has been considered as Teacher (Arts). He would also submit that, a separate list of Teacher (Hindi) and (Arts) has been prepared over rationalisation, but the petitioner, despite having Teacher (Hindi), has been considered as Teacher (Arts). He would also submit that, in the district level rationalisation counselling, she has not been called. However, after completion of district level rationalisation counselling, her name has been displayed in divisional level rationalisation counselling, and thereby she was deprived to opt the school of her choice. It is also submitted that, another Teacher (English) Mr. K.K. Patel, who is junior to one Mr. R.K. Thakur, has not been declared surplus, and thereby, the subject and language, is not the criteria for consideration of rationalisation. Yet, the petitioner has been declared surplus, and has been posted to Birkona school. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that, considering the strength of students in the school and requirement of teachers there, the petitioner has been considered as Teacher (Arts) and she has been declared surplus there. The petitioner is having alternate remedy of approaching before the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee as per the circular issued on 07.07.2025 by the State Government. The posting of the petitioner is, under the strict compliance of rationalisation instructions and there is no arbitrary or mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities, while declaring the petitioner surplus, and posting her at Middle School, Birkona. The 5 grounds raised by the petitioner are factual disputes, which can very well be considered by the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee, and no relief in the present writ petition can be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has been considered as surplus, at Govt. Middle School, Jamrao, District Durg and she has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Birkona, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham. She has been treated as Teacher (Arts), and has been posted at Birkona school. In the order dated 01.07.2025, while considering the representation of the petitioner, the District Level Rationalisation Committee has considered that, the Middle School, Jamrao was having 176 students, and there was requirement of 07 teachers. However, total 10 teachers were working in the school, and as per the rotational calculation in view of the subjects, as provided under clause 7-B(5) of the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner has been declared surplus. Although, at the time of merger, in the year 2018, she was considered to be a Teacher (Hindi), but so far as the purposes of rationalisation, she has been considered as Teacher (Arts), as there is no subject specified in her appointment order, that she is a Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher (Arts), and it is for the school concerned, at the time of rationalisation, in which she was teaching in the school. Whether or not, the petitioner is a Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher (Arts), it is for the authorities concerned to take a decision, and if the authorities concerned have considered the 6 petitioner as Teacher (Arts), and declared her surplus at Govt. Middle School, Jamrao, this Court cannot examine while deciding the writ petition, as to whether the petitioner is a Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher (Arts). It is based on the records submitted before the District Level Rationalization Committee at the time of deciding her representation, and as she was provided opportunity of hearing on 27.06.2025 to appear before the District Level Rationalization Committee. After hearing the petitioner on 27.06.2025, the District Level Rationalization Committee has passed the order on 01.07.2025, in which I do not find any perversity or illegality to interfere with the same. 8. 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 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. 7 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, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved