1 2025:CGHC:59353-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 898 of 2025 Gauri Shankar Palke S/o Tilak Ram Palke Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Jhonkapara, Block- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Department of Public Instruction, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Collector Cum President of District Level Rationalization Committee Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The District Education Officer Cum Secretary Of District Level Rationalization Committee Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Cum President Of Block Level Rationalization Committee Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. The Block Education Officer Cum Secretary Of Block Level Rationalization Committee Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.08 16:37:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11542 of 2025 (Gauri Shankar Palke vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Jhokapara, Block-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) since the year 2019 and has discharged his duties sincerely and diligently. He further submits that by letter dated 28.04.2025, respondent No.1 directed all Collectors and District Education Officers to initiate proceedings for rationalization of schools and teachers in terms of the Government Circular dated 3 02.08.2024. In pursuance thereof, district and block level committees were constituted. After the so-called rationalization exercise, the appellant was wrongly declared surplus and transferred by order dated 04.06.2025 from Government Primary School, Jhokapara, Kota, Bilaspur to Primary School, Manwa, Masturi, Bilaspur. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant challenged the said transfer order by filing writ petition bearing WPS No. 6662 of 2025 and the learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.06.2025, directed him to submit a fresh representation before the District/Divisional Rationalization Committee. However, respondent No.5 rejected the appellant’s representation on 04.07.2025 and reaffirmed the earlier transfer order without proper consideration of facts. He also contended that the appellant preferred an appeal/representation before respondent No.3, the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur, pointing out that the actual student strength and admission registers were not considered. The said appeal was also rejected on 10.09.2025, which was communicated to the appellant on 11.09.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant thereafter challenged the said order by filing writ petition bearing WPS No. 11542 of 2025; however, the learned Single Bench, by order dated 13.10.2025, dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage without properly considering the mandatory provisions of the Circular dated 02.08.2024. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to 4 appreciate that the orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are in direct violation of the Government Circular dated 02.08.2024. The said circular clearly prescribes the teacher-student ratio for rationalization, but the authorities acted arbitrarily in declaring the appellant surplus. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that as per Clause 7 of the Circular dated 02.08.2024, where the number of students is 61 to 90, three teachers including the Headmaster are required. Since the appellant’s school has 62 students, the declaration of the appellant as a surplus teacher is wholly illegal and contrary to the circular. He would submit that the same Clause 7 also provides that one teacher is required for every 30 students. Since there are 62 students in the appellant’s school, three teachers are required, and therefore, the appellant could not have been legally declared surplus. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondent authorities were duty-bound to strictly comply with the Circular dated 02.08.2024. The failure to do so vitiates the entire rationalization process as well as the transfer order. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these mandatory provisions and committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 5 declaring the appellant surplus and transferring him deserve to be quashed, with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ appeal. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the order passed by 5 the learned Single Judge and submitted that, as per the portal record, the number of students is shown as 57 and, therefore, the appellant has rightly been transferred. He further submitted that in an identical matter, this Bench had already dismissed WA No. 529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 28.07.2025. Thus, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment along with the documents available on record. 10. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has nowhere disclosed in the writ petition as to since when he has been posted at the present place of posting. On a specific query made by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant has been posted at the present place since the year 2019 and thus has completed more than six years at the same place. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since the number of students is 61 or 62, therefore, three teachers ought to have been posted, the said contention is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Merely on the basis of the number of students, the appellant cannot claim a vested right to continue at a particular place of posting. The number of classes, requirement of subject-wise teachers and overall administrative exigency are also relevant factors for proper functioning of an educational institution. The appellant has not placed any material on record to show class-wise distribution of students so as to substantiate his claim. 6 12. Even otherwise, it is a well-settled principle of law that both Government and private institutions have the right to rationalize their manpower for ensuring optimum utilization of resources. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in 2025 INSC 801, has elaborately upheld the concept of rationalization by the employer. The State, being the best judge of administrative requirements, is fully empowered to deploy its manpower in the interest of students and for achieving the object of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The rationalization scheme introduced by the State cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, the transfer of the appellant from one institution to another where the requirement of teachers is greater cannot be said to suffer from any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. 13. It is also a settled position of law that transfer is an incident of service and when it is made in the exigency of service, no employee has a legal right to remain posted at a particular place for the entire service tenure. In the present case, the appellant has already completed more than six years at the same place of posting since 2019, which itself is a sufficiently long tenure. Hence, no interference is called for on this ground as well. 14. This Court also finds that an identical issue has already been considered and decided by this Bench in WA No. 529 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided on 7 28.07.2025, wherein the writ appeal challenging rationalization and transfer was dismissed. The present appeal being squarely covered by the said decision, no different view can be taken. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan