1 2025:CGHC:43647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9817 of 2025 1 - Sharda Rathore W/o Dhananjay Rathore Aged About 36 Years Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Presently Posted At Govt. Primary School Lata, Block Katghora, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Collector Korba, District Korba, C.G. 4 - Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba, C.G. 6 - Smt. Manjulata Kashyap Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Presently Posted At Govt. Primary School Lata, Block Katghora, District Korba, C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer 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 08.08.2025 (Annexure P/1), 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 18:14:09 +0530 2 and 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/3), whereby the representation of the petitioner before the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee has been rejected, the representation of the petitioner has also been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and he has been posted at Primary School, Ghaghra, Block Podi-Uproda and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Scheme of the Government and posted at Govt. Primary School Ghaghra, Block Podi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the Govt. Primary School Lata, Block Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 31.05.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 5231 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 appeared before the District Level Rationalization Committee and after hearing her, her representation has been rejected on 30.06.2025. Against the order dated 30.06.2025, he again made her representation before the 3 Divisional Level Rationalization Committee and she was provided opportunity of hearing on 06.08.2025, thereafter, her representation has also been rejected on 08.08.2025 by the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee in mechanical manner. He would further submit that the petitioner had joined in the school on 20.09.2022 at 2:00 PM, whereas the respondent No.6 had joined in the school on 20.09.2022 at 3:40 PM, and thus, as per clause 7(A)(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner being the senior in the school from the respondent No.6, yet she has been declared surplus and has been posted at Primary School, Ghaghra. He would also submit that taking charge in the school and its date and timing has been clearly mentioned in the school attendance register (Annexure P/7), but the same has not been considered while deciding the representation and seniority has been considered as per their gradation list, therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 both have joined there in the school on 20.09.2022 and as per their gradation list, the respondent No.6 is the senior than the petitioner. The absorption of the respondent No.6 is on 01.07.2019, whereas the petitioner is absorbed on 01.11.2020. Since, the date of joining in the school of both of them are same, their seniority in the gradation list has been considered for rationalization, which is strictly under clause 7(A)(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. It is no where mentioned in the Rationalization Instructions that the time of joining in the school, is to be considered in the case, when the date of 4 joining are the same, 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 an Assistant Teacher (LB) was posted at Primary School, Lata and under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, she has been declared surplus and posted at Primary School, Ghaghra. The petitioner tried to demonstrate from the document (Annexure P/7) that he has joined in the school on 20.09.2022 at 2:00 PM and the respondent No.6 had joined on the same day at 3:40 PM, but from perusal of clause 7(A)(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the consideration of timing about joining in the school is nowhere mentioned. It is only mentioned that on the basis of date of joining in the school, the junior most Assistant Teacher would be declared as surplus. Clause 7(A)(4) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “सात:- अतितशेष तिशेक्षकों कों ति न्हांकोंन हांत प्रतियाः- तिकोंसाखण्ड स्तरीयाः सातितित याःतियाःकोंरीण बाले तिद्यालेयाः कों अतितशेष तिशेक्षकों तथा अन्याः तिद्यालेयाः कों अतितशेष तिशेक्षकों दो& ति न्हांकोंन हांत तिनम्ननसारी प्रतियाः अपनयाःगी- A. प्रथातिकों शेले - 04. शेले * पदोत्त्था/कोंयाः,भारी ग्रहांण तिदोनकों कों आधारी परी कोंतिनष्ठत साहांयाःकों तिशेक्षकों अतितशेष न जायाः*गी।” 6. From perusal of the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the District 5 Level Rationalization Committee, it further transpires that after passing of the order dated 19.06.2025, in WPS No. 5231 of 2025, the petitioner appeared on 25.06.2025 before the said committee, and after giving opportunity of hearing, her representation was decided. The District Level Rationalization Committee has considered in the order dated 30.06.2025 that:- “उपरी&नत्तारी अपलेकोंत, कों अभ्याःदोन परी ति री&पत8, श्रीत जा:लेत कों;तिशेकों ए श्रीत सारीदो रीठौ;री कों> शेले * कोंयाः,भारी ग्रहांण तितथिथा एकों हां हां&न कों कोंरीण दो&न * सा कोंतिनष्ठत तिशेतिक्षकों कों& अतितशेष कों रूप * ति न्हांतिकोंत तिकोंयाः गीयाः। सा.. 57 * दोजा, तिशेतिक्षकों श्रीत फू: लेत कोंत कों> तिनयाःति तितथिथा 01.05.2006 हांB तिकों त ष, 2021 * सारीगीजा सा स्थानतरीण सा आन कों कोंरीण 01.07.2018 कों& सातिथिलेयाःन हांCए साभा तिशेक्षकों सा कोंतिनष्ठत स्थान परी रीख गीयाः हांB तिकों त श्रीत शेरीदो रीठौ;री कों> सातिथिलेयाःन तितथिथा 01.11.2020 हां&न कों कोंरीण कोंतिनष्ठ स्थान परी रीख गीयाः हांB। याःतियाःकोंरीण तिनदोDशे कों> कों तिडकों 10 (4), याःहां स्पष्ट कोंहांत हांB तिकों कोंउसाथिलेगी हांत थिजातन तिशेक्षकों अतितशेष हांB, उतन हां साख्याः * तिशेक्षकों तिहांन, एकोंले तिशेक्षकों>याः, अथिधाकों दोजा, साख्याः ले तिद्यालेयाः कों& दोतिशे,त तिकोंयाः जायाः।” 7. The order passed by District Level Rationalization Committee dated 30.06.2025 is affirmed by the Divisional Level Rationalization Committee vide order dated 08.08.2025 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 06.08.2025. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition and instructions submitted by the State, I do not find any infirmity or arbitrariness in the orders dated 31.05.2025, 30.06.2025 and 08.08.2025, which warrant interference of this Court. 8. 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 6 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. 9. 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 08.08.2025 (Annexure P/1), 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), and 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/3) are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved