1 2025:CGHC:36343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8516 of 2025 1 - Durga Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Radhelal Tiwari Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle Shcool, Chantipali, Block Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Public Education Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Block Education Officer Block Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner has been posted to Govt. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.23 20:00:26 +0530 2 Middle School, Pihra, Block Baramkela, under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 and also challenging the order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P/9), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Challenging the order dated 05.06.2025, the petitioner had filed the WPS No. 5614/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, which shall decide the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time. In compliance of the order dated 23.06.2025 the petitioner appeared before the District Level Rationalization Committee 30.06.2025 and after hearing him his representation has been rejected on 09.07.2025 by the District Level Rationalization Committee and the decision of the District Level Rationalization Committee has been informed by the Block Education Officer, Sarangarh, vide memo dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P/9) which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi vide order dated 23.01.2007 and posted at Lailunga. Vide transfer order dated 20.11.2015, he was transferred to Govt. Middle School, Chantipali, and since then, he has been working there. Under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted to Govt. Middle School, Pihra vide order dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner made his representation before the respondent authorities to change the place of his posting, as there are a number of vacant posts available in the same block, but his representation was not considered. Challenging his grievance, he filed a writ petition in which a direction was made by this Court to decide the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing him and in pursuance thereof, although the petitioner was being heard on 30.06.2025. 3 However, his representation has been decided mechanically. The petitioner had met with an accident on 03.03.2025 and received grievous injuries, including a fracture of his right elbow, and he is facing difficulties with his movement. There is a complete violation of rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that there is no violation of any condition of rationalization instructions. As per Clause 7-B (2) of the rationalization instructions, three teachers and one Headmaster are to be posted where the number of students is 105 or less. At Middle School, Chantipali, the number of students was 32, whereas 5 teachers were working. Since the petitioner was the junior teacher, he was declared surplus and has been posted vide order dated 05.06.2025. The school where the petitioner is posted has only two teachers, and the number of students was 34 and therefore, under the strict compliance of the rationalization instructions, the petitioner was posted there. The representation of the petitioner has been considered by the District Level Rationalization Committee in accordance with law, and there is no ground available to the petitioner in the present writ petition to quash the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The ground raised by the petitioner is that despite having a vacant post in the school, he has been posted at another school after being declared surplus, and his representation has not been considered properly. From perusal of the order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P/7), though it has not been challenged by the petitioner, it transpires that the number of students in at Primary School, Chantiplai, was 32 and 5 teachers were posted. As per Clause 7-B (2) of the rationalization instructions, only 4 teachers, including the Headmaster, were required when the number of students is 105 or less. 4 Since only 32 students were there therefore 4 teachers were required in the school, including the Headmaster, and the petitioner, being the junior-most, has been declared surplus. Even though some irregularities were found in the working of the District Education Officer, and he was placed under the Departmental proceeding, that itself would not be a ground to quash the order dated 05.06.2025 by which the petitioner has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Pihra. Even if some posts are lying vacant in the same block, the same would also not be a ground to quash the impugned order, and it is for the authorities concerned to consider the suitability of the petitioner in the school under their jurisdiction. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in the order of his posting or the decision of the District Level Rationalization Committee dated 09.07.2025. The memo dated 11.07.2025 is an intimation and relieving order pursuant to the order dated 05.06.2025 and 09.07.2025. 7. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. 5 8. 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 Alok