1 2025:CGHC:45441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9225 of 2025 1 - Taman Kumar Sahu S/o Firuram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Beltukari, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Occupation Assistant Teacher ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions Directorate Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Head Master, Government Ambedkar Primary School, Nayapara, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 8 - Head Master, Government Primary School, Jamdarha, Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 9 - Madhu Sahu Assistant Teacher, Government Ambedkar Primary School, Nayapara, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 10 - Yogita Thakur Assistant Teacher, Government Ambedkar Primary School, Nayapara, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 11 - Seema Pradhan Assistant Teacher, Government Ambedkar Primary School, Nayapara, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.08 12:25:45 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been posted at Government Primary School, Jamdarha, Block Basna, and also the order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalisation Committee. 2. The present in the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 5214 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2025, directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the concerned District Level Rationalisation Committee within the stipulated time and then the committee was directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in objective manner. Pursuant to the order dated 25.06.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 08.07.2025, which is under challenge in the present case petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of her posting has been passed by the District Education Officer, who is not the competent authority to issue posting order of the petitioner, as he is not the appointing authority. She would also submit that the order has been passed by the District Level Rationalisation 3 Committee headed by the Collector, who is not the competent authority. She would also submit that the petitioner is working at Swami Atmanand Excellence Higher Secondary School, and as per clause 2.14 of the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024, Swami Atmanand Schools are exempted from Rationalisation. She would also submit that the petitioner has wrongly declared surplus there and has been wrongly posted at Government Primary School, Jamdarha. Therefore, the impugned order of posting and order dated 08.07.2025 passed by District Level Rationalisation Committee may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that as per Schedule-I, Entry No. 37 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, the District Education Officer is the appointing authority of the Assistant Teachers. In the present case, the District Education Officer-cum- Secretary, District Level Rationalisation Committee has issued the posting order of the petitioner, who is competent under the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioner has been elaborately considered by the District Level Rationalisation Committee and each and every objection raised by the petitioner has been considered and answered vide order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner being the junior most in the school, as per his joining, he has been declared surplus and has been posted. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, the District Education Officer is not the competent authority to pass the order impugned and the petitioner being employed at Swami Atmanand School, he cannot be rationalised and declared surplus. The entry No. 37 of Schedule-I appended in the Rules of 2019 clearly provides that the District Education Officer is the appointing authority of the Assistant Teachers. Further, from Clause 1(C) of the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the Committee has been constituted by the State Government for Rationalisation of the Teachers and for their posting at teacherless, single teacher or strength of students in the schools. This Committee has been constituted only for the posting of the teachers and by the posting of the teachers, their service conditions are not affected and therefore, by making the posting order of the petitioner, the competency is not relevant at all, whereas the District Education Officer, who is the Secretary of District Level Rationalisation Committee as per the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024 has passed the posting order of the petitioner, which cannot be said beyond his competence. Further, clause 2.14 of the Rationalisation Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that the Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi/English Medium Schools and P.M. Shree schools are not to be rationalised. It is nowhere mentioned that the teachers working at those schools cannot be rationalised or cannot be posted at any other schools. Therefore, both these grounds of the petitioner fail. Further, 5 from perusal of the order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/2) it is quite vivid that the petitioner is the junior most Assistant Teacher in the school and as he has joined there on 19.06.2024. As per the strength of the students, only 9 teachers were required. However, there were total 13 teachers working and since the petitioner is junior, he has been declared surplus and has been posted to Government Primary School Jamdarha. 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 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. 6 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 dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/2) is made out. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved