1 2025:CGHC:43804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9280 of 2025 1 - Tripti Shaw W/o Ajay Shaw Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer L.B. (Sanskrit), Government Higher Secondary School, Kachna, Block Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Kachna, Block Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Asha Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years Presenlty Posted As Lecturer L.B. (Hindi), Government Higher Secondary School, Kachna, Block Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.15 18:15:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 29.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and also against the order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), by which she has been posted from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna, Block Dharsiwa to Govt. BNB, Higher Secondary School, Neora, Block Tilda and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 29.06.2025, issued by the District Education Officer/Co-Member Secretary, District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Raipur (C.G.) (annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated dated 05.06.2025 issued by District Education Officer/Co-Member Secretary, District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G (Annexure P/2). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the petitioner as not surplus/excess teacher in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue the list of all vacancies lie in all schools. Further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, not to force the name of the petitioner (teacher) against one place of posting but to give options to the petitioner to choose from the 10.5 nearest schools where vacant post lies. 3 10.5 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 05.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 5054 of 2025, which was disposed of on 19.06.2025 with liberty to make fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, who shall decide the same within the stipulated time frame. On 25.06.2025, the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing on her representation and after hearing her, her representation has been rejected vide order dated 29.06.2025 by the District Level Rationalization Committee on the ground that there is no sanctioned post for Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the school and therefore, she has been declared surplus. He would further submit that the petitioner is teaching Sanskrit in the school since 2012 and her posting in the school is for Sanskrit subject. There is a setup fixed by the State Government that there should be a Lecturer (Sanskrit) in every school, in which the number of students are in between 61 to 359. The strength of students of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna is more than 350, and therefore, there should be a post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). Had there been no post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), the petitioner would not have teaching Sanskrit there since last about 13 years. He would also submit that there is violation of clause 7-C of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. By the posting of the petitioner to other school, there would be no Lecturer for Sanskrit 4 subject. He would also submit that the petitioner is going to be retired in the month of December, 2027 and she is suffering from Diabetes, Thyroid, B.P. and Vertigo and underwent the surgery of Hernia. Her husband is also a retired employee, and therefore, the impugned orders suffer from illegality and arbitrariness and the same are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, there is no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the school. Although the setup of the Lecturers for the schools have been fixed by the Directorate of Public Instructions, but there is no sanctioned post available for Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna, Block Dharsiwa. Clause 7-C of the Rationalization Instructions have been strictly followed by the authorities, while declaring the petitioner surplus and considering her representation. The representation of the petitioner has also been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee after proper scrutiny of the grievance of the petitioner and material available with the said committee, therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the District Level and Divisional Level Rationalization Committee have rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner, which needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna and under the Rationalization Instructions 5 dated 02.08.2024, she has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. BNB Higher Secondary School, Neora, Block Tilda. The claim of the petitioner that as per the setup fixed by the Directorate of Public Instructions, dated 12.05.2022, there should be one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in every schools having strength of students in between 61 to 359 and the petitioner is teaching Sanskrit since 2012, therefore, she cannot be declared surplus there. The claim of the petitioner does not find support from the instructions submitted by the State counsel, which revealed that there is no sanctioned vacant post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna. She may be teaching Sanskrit in the school, but in absence of vacant sanctioned post, she cannot claim to be remained there as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in view of the provisions of the Rationalization Instructions. Though, there is setup fixed by the Directorate of Public Instructions, but for the reasons best known to the authorities, the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) is not there in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kachna. Though, the petitioner has also raised her personal difficulties and ailments as a ground of her grievances, but the same has been considered by the authorities while deciding her representation on 29.06.2025. The petitioner also tried to impress by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Neena Khatri” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4588, but the facts and consideration of that case are different than the facts of the present case, and therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from that judgment. The rationalization of the petitioner is under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness 6 in rationalization of the petitioner and the order of her posting. 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 orders dated 29.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved