1 2025:CGHC:37179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8704 of 2025 1 - Pradip Kumar Rande S/o Thakur Ram Rande Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Badejugera (Ashram), Block Dondi Lohara District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi 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 Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.01 12:13:03 +0530 2 30/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner who is a Teacher (English) was posted at Govt. Middle School, Dhurvatola, has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Badajugera (Ashram), Block Daundilohara under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Merger and Rationalization Policy Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside the impugned posting order transfer (Annexure-P/2) of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation within a period of 15 days in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is differently abled teacher and suffering from 40% of locomotive disability. As per clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he cannot be declared surplus and cannot be posted at 3 any other place from the present place of posting. The petitioner has made his representation on 12.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 before the authorities, but the same has not been considered till date and therefore, the impugned order of his posting dated 02.06.2025 is against the Rationalization Instructions and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner was posted as Teacher (English) and is declared surplus at Govt. Middle School, Dhurvatola. Under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions, he has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School, Badajugera. Though he claimed in his representation that, his appointment was on the basis of his disability, but he has not filed any document in the present writ petition showing that his appointment is under the said category. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions provided that the differently abled teachers may not be declared surplus, who have been appointed on that quota, and therefore, there is no ground in the present writ petition to challenge the posting order dated 02.06.2025, and the 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, who is a Teacher is claiming that he should not be treated as surplus teacher in the school under the provisions of clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Clause 10.5 4 of the Rationalization Instructions is reproduced hereinbelow for its consideration:- “दस :- काउंसलिं ग की प्रक्रिया :- अतिशेष शिशक्षकों की पदस्थापना पारदश कॉउंसलिं ग के माध्यम से की जायेगी। इसकी प्रक्रिया क्रिनम्नानुसार होगी :- 5. अतिशेष शिशक्षकों की गणना करे समय क्रिदव्यांग कोटे के अन्ग. क्रिनयुक्त शिशक्षक यक्रिद कक्रिनष्ठम है ो उक्त क्रिदव्यांग शिशक्षक को छोड़कर अन्य कक्रिनष्ठ शिशक्षक की गणना अतिशेष के रूप में जायेगी।” 6. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it reveals that the teachers, who are appointed under the category of physical disabled persons, may not be considered surplus, but from perusal of the entire documents annexed with the petition, there is no document or appointment of the petitioner, which shows that the appointment of the petitioner is under the physically disabled category. Therefore, no benefit of clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions could be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 7. 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 5 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. 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 ved