1 2025:CGHC:41747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9646 of 2025 1 - Smt. Reena Atul Singh W/o Shri Atul Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Twinkle Kids School, Friends Nagar, Mowa, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. Presently Posted As Lecturer (Maths) At Government Higher Secondary School Dumartarai, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Directorate Of Public Instructions Through The Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 3 - District Collector Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4 - District Education Officer Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 6 - Joint Director Raipur Education Division, Raipur, C.G. 7 - Principal Government High School, Khouna, Tilda, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 8 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 9 - Dr. Ritu Shrivastava Lecturer (Maths), Government Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 10 - The Divisional Level Committee For Rationalization Through Secretary, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur, C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.22 11:47:48 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/10), by which her representation has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/10) issued by the District Rationalization Committee, Raipur, and all consequential orders, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of Surplus Teachers, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue necessary directions to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue and discharge her duties as Lecturer (Maths) at the Government Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai, Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ to respondents to decide the pending appeal/representation before the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed. 10.6 Cost of the petition may be awarded.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (Maths) was posted at Govt. Higher 3 Secondary School, Dumartarai, District Raipur. She has been declared surplus there and called for counseling on 04.06.2025. The petitioner had challenged the list of surplus teachers to the extent of declaring her surplus in WPS No. 4133 of 2025, which was disposed of on 12.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee within the stipulated time frame and the committee shall take a decision in objective manner. Pursuant to the order dated 12.06.2025, the petitioner moved her representation on 16.06.2025 and appeared on 18.06.2025 before the District Level Rationalization Committee. After hearing the petitioner, the order dated 25.06.2025 has been passed by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The State Government vide its notification No. GENCOR- 35010/1738/2025-GAD-5, dated 07.07.2025, constituted a Divisional Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representation of the Teachers/Lecturers, but after passing of the order dated 25.06.2025, the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedies before the said Divisional Level Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, vide order dated 21.08.2019 the petitioner was transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai. She could be relieved from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Khauna, Block Tilda on 26.08.2019 after 4:00 PM, and when she reached at Dumartarai school on the same day, it was almost about 6:00 PM and the school was closed. On the next day, i.e. 4 on 27.08.2019 at about 10:30 AM, when she reached there at Dumartarai school, she was informed by the Principal that the respondent No.9 Smt. Ritu Shrivastava had joined there on 26.08.2019 in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 and since only one post of Lecturer (Maths) was available there, she was advised to approach to District Education Officer. When she approached to the District Education Officer, she also instructed to join there at Dumartarai school, as her order is issued first i.e. on 21.08.2019. On his instructions, when she again went there at Dumartarai school, she was given joining on 27.08.2019 in the forenoon. On 04.06.2025, at the time of counseling, she made request for deleting her name from the list of surplus lecturers and also filed the writ petition, but her grievance has not been redressed by the authorities and her representation has been rejected. She also submits that though no order of posting of the petitioner has been issued till date, yet her name is there in the list of surplus lecturers and the order of her posting may be issued by the authorities anytime, and therefore, she has challenged the list of surplus lecturers with respect to declaring her surplus and also the order dated order dated 25.06.2025. Since the petitioner’s order has been issued first and she joined in the school, prior to the respondent No.9, the petitioner cannot be declared surplus and the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, till date no posting order of the petitioner has been issued. The respondent No.9 has joined in the 5 school on 26.08.2019 afternoon and the petitioner had joined in the school on 27.08.2019 in the forenoon, therefore, from the date of their joining in the school, the petitioner is junior and she has been declared surplus. The District Level Rationalization Committee after considering the representation of the petitioner, hearing her and after examining the relevant records, passed the order on 25.06.2025 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 7. In the present writ petition, admittedly no posting order of the petitioner has been passed till date, though she has been declared surplus in Dumartarai school. The challenge of the petitioner to the declaration of her surplus lecturer in the school is on the ground that the order by which she has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai dated 21.08.2019, whereas the order with respect to transfer of the respondent No.9 at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai is on 22.08.2019. The respondent No.9 was given joining prior to the petitioner and the joining of the petitioner was evaded on 26.08.2019 and she could join under the instructions of District Education Officer, on 27.08.2019 forenoon. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and document annexed with the petition, it revealed that the petitioner could be relieved from the school, where she was earlier posted on 26.08.2019 after 4:00 PM and due to the distance between the schools, where she has been transferred, she could reach there at about 6:00 PM, but the school 6 was closed. On the next date, i.e. on 27.08.2019, when she appeared at Dumartarai school for joining at about 11:00 AM, she was informed that respondent No.9 has already joined there and since only one post of Lecturer (Maths) was there, she asked to seek instructions by the District Education Officer. On the instructions of the District Education Officer, she could join on 27.08.2019 at forenoon. 8. Be that as it may, for whatever reason, she could join at Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai, it was a separate issue for challenge. On 26.08.2019 or 27.08.2019, it was not there in the mind of either the petitioner, respondent No.9 or the authorities concerned that the timing of their joining in the school would raise any issue of their seniority for their posting. Since 2019, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.9 had challenged the date or timing of their joining at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dumartarai. The facts remains that the respondent No.9 had joined in the Dumartarai school on 26.08.2019 afternoon and the petitioner had joined on 27.08.2019 forenoon. Irrespective of the orders passed with respect to the transfer of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.9 in the school, the respondent No.9 has joined prior to the petitioner. The reasons alleged by the petitioner for late joining in the school could not be examined in the present writ petition. The District Level Rationalization Committee, after hearing the petitioner, on 18.06.2025 and after examining the records, rejected the representation of the petitioner on 25.06.2025, in which I do not find any perversity or arbitrariness, which warrants interference in the impugned order. 9. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It 7 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. In the present case, as per the submissions made by the parties, no posting order of the petitioner has been issued till date. 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. 10. 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