1 2025:CGHC:35776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8457 of 2025 1 - Ashutosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Teacher (Lb) At Govt. Middle School, Kadar, Bilha, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G) 3 - District Education Officer- Cum- Secretary District Yuktiyuktakaran Samiti, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher (Science) and presently working at Middle School, Kadar (Bilha) has been posted to Middle School, Bagdhara (Kota) under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed for following VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.23 13:21:04 +0530 2 reliefs in the writ petition:- “In light of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondents have declared the petitioner as surplus teacher in utter violation of the Rationalization Policy and posted him at Govt. Middle School Bagdhara, Kota, Dist.: Bilaspur as a "Science" Teacher inspite of his being a teacher for the subject English. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting as shown in the cause title above. 10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Teacher (English) and he was promoted vide order dated 15.05.2023 as the Teacher (English), but at the time of Rationalization, he has been considered as Teacher (Science) and has been declared surplus. He made his objection at the time of counseling that he is a Teacher (English) and not the Teacher (Science), but the same was not considered by the authorities and he was declared surplus and has been posted at Middle School, Bagdhara. There is violation of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the seniority of the petitioner has also not been considered, therefore, the impugned order of his posting is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on 3 instructions, opposed and would submit that, the posting of the petitioner is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There is no violation of any procedure prescribed for the same. The petitioner has been considered as Teacher (Science) on the basis of teaching the subject in the school. Though he may have promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) to the post of Teacher (LB) in English subject, but considering his subject in the school, in which he is teaching, he has been considered. Though the petitioner has made his representation before the authorities on 05.06.2025, but no sufficient ground could be made out by the petitioner in the present writ petition to quash the impugned order of his posting, and therefore, his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 on the ground that he is a Teacher (English), but he has been considered as Teacher (Science). Though by the order dated 15.05.2023, the petitioner was promoted as Teacher (LB) for English subject, but at the time of rationalization his subject in the school, in which he is teaching, has been considered Science. It is for the authorities concerned to consider the subject of the teachers in the school as per the strength of the students and setup of the school. Except for the promotion order of the petitioner, no other document has been annexed by him, which shows that his appointment was on the post of Assistant Teacher (English) or he is having proficiency in English. He also could not demonstrate that he is teaching English in 4 the school by filing any time-table or duty roster of the school. 6. 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 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. 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 dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved