1 2025:CGHC:35496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8334 of 2025 1 - Smt. Achala Verma W/o Shri Anurag Kumar Verma, Aged About 56 Years Lecturer (History), R/o C-17 Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, First Floor, Block C, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur Composite Building District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer, Takhatpur, Office Of B.E.O. District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Muru, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Principal, Government Higher Secondary, School, Uslapur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Divisional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Near Sanjay Tarun Pushkar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Rahul Birtharey, Advocate. For State : Shri S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.07. 202 5 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide her representation dated 04.06.2025 and 2 10.07.2025 in accordance with law and under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (History) vide order dated 03.10.2008 and was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Uslapur, District Bilaspur. Under the rationalization instructions, she was declared surplus and posted to Higher Secondary School, Muru, Block Takhatpur vide order dated 04.06.2025. Against the order dated 04.06.2025 she made her representation before the respondent No.3 on 04.06.2025 itself as also before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 10.07.2025. Though, in compliance of the order dated 04.06.2025 she joined at her place of posting i.e. Govt. Higher Secondary School Muru on 10.06.2025 however, she raised her grievance by filing her representations to the authorities concerned which is yet to be decided and therefore, the authorities may be directed to decide the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law within stipulat time frame. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that under the rationalization instructions the petitioner has been considered as surplus at Higher Secondary School, Uslapur, and she has been posted at Higher Secondary School, Muru which is under the strict compliance of rationalization instruction. Though she raised her grievances by making representations, however, she had joined her place of posting on 10.06.2025 and now since the order impugned has already been complied with, it is for the authorities concerned to take a decision on her representations, but the impugned order of her 3 posting cannot be quashed on that ground alone. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner and also considering the fact that in compliance of the order dated 04.06.2025 since the petitioner has already joined her transferred place of posting on 10.06.2025, without entering into the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioner dated 04.06.2025 and 10.07.2025 in accordance with law on its own merits preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In addition to representations already made, the petitioner is also at liberty to make her fresh representation, if so desired. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder