1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8384 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Soni W/o Ravi Kumar Aged About 41 Years R/o 59-15-A, Risdi Pipe Line, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Bilaspur Division School, Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Preeti Sahu, W/o Mukesh Sahu, R/o Village Pali Tahsil Pali, Hardibazar District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Chayarani W/o Gopi Chand, R/o Mungadih P/s Tahsil Hardibazar District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saket Pandey, on behalf of Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.20 10:27:09 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned list of surplus teachers dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the name of the petitioner is placed at S.No. 5 as surplus lecturers (Commerce) at Sejesh Kudmura. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though in pursuance of order of her posting dated 07.06.2025, the petitioner has joined at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kudekela, Block- Dharamjagar, Dist- Raigarh. However, she challenged the list of surplus teachers dated 04.06.2025 because she has been placed at S. No. 5 in the list instead of S. No. 3 or 4 as per her seniority. He would further submit that the petitioner apprehends that when she has been placed below the junior lecturers her seniority may be affected in the gradation list for subsequent years, therefore, she is challenging the list of surplus teachers dated 04.06.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that pursuant to the list of surplus teachers dated 04.06.2025, the order of posting of the petitioner has been passed on 07.06.2025 and in compliance of that order dated 07.06.2025, the petitioner has joined at her place of posting. He would further submit that the order dated 07.06.2025 has not been challenged by her whereas she has been challenged the list dated 04.06.2025 which has already been complied with without any objection and at present there is no existence the said list dated 04.06.2025 with respect to the petitioner. He would further submit that the apprehension of the 3 petitioner is baseless as the gradation list is to be prepared on the basis of their regularization or date of joining and not from the date of their posting vide list dated 04.06.2025, therefore, there is no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Undisputedly, pursuant to the list of surplus teaches dated 04.06.2025, the order of posting of the petitioner has been issued on 07.06.2025 and pursuant to the order dated 07.06.2025, she has joined at her place of posting, however, the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be baseless that the subsequent gradation list list is may be prepared on the basis of this surplus teacher’s list dated 04.06.2025. The gradation list and seniority of the employees is to be fixed on the basis of their date of regularization or date of joining and not from their date of posting and therefore, I do not find any palpable infirmity in the list dated 04.06.2025 prepared with respect to the surplus teachers and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika