1 2025:CGHC:36426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8592 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nandini Kashyap W/o Shri Rampyare Kashyap, Aged About 38 Years R/o Aasma Colony Sakri Ward No. 2 Nagar Palika Nigam Mungeli Road Ps Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Distt. Raipur C.G. Pin- 492001 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Education First Floor C-Block Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/07/2025 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 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 19:35:43 +0530 2 a Teacher (Science) and is posted at Middle School, Pendari (Takhatpur) is now being posted at Middle School, Kenda (Kota) under the rationalization process and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 4.6.2025 (Annexure P/1). & directed the respondent authority to passed the fresh order in favour of the petitioner and posted earlier place of posting i.e. middle School Pendari (Takhatpur) District Bilaspur (C.G.) on the basis of retirement of one Science teacher because school will require Science teacher. iii) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv) That, any other relief, which the petitioner is entitled and this Hon'ble court deems it fit may kindly, be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as a Teacher (Science) at Middle School, Pendari and she has been posted to Middle School, Kenda (Kota) by the order dated 04.06.2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The headmaster of the Middle School, Pendari is going to be retired and another teacher is already retired on 30.05.2025 from Middle School, Pendari and there are vacant post available and she could be adjusted against the said vacant post. She is the Block President of Women Cell of Chhattisgarh Welfare Association and as per clause 10.7(3) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the office bearers of Teacher’s union are exempted from 3 their rationalization. Raising her grievances, she made her representation to the respondent No.4 on 12.06.2025, but the same has not been considered, and therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the subsequent creation of vacancy on the ground of retirement of another teacher/headmaster could not be a ground to quash the impugned order of posting, which has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions. The grievances of the petitioner are to be considered within the scope of consideration under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 considering the strength of the students in the school and available teachers, the petitioner was declared surplus and she has been posted. The petitioner could not annexed any document that she is Block President of Teacher’s association. The petitioner could not demonstrate any ground, which is violative under the Rationalization Instructions and therefore in absence of any ground to challenge, her writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.06.2025 is that one teacher of the school has already been retired on 30.05.2025 and the headmaster of the school is going to be retired on 30.06.2025 and she could be adjusted on their posts. From perusal of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, this Court does 4 not find any provision that the petitioner can be adjusted against the proposed vacancy on superannuation of the headmaster. I found no ground to quash the order dated 04.06.2025 for the reason that the headmaster of the school is going to be retired on 30.06.2025. No other ground has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition to challenge the order dated 04.06.2025. 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 5 order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved