2025:CGHC:55232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7015 of 2025 Dharmendra Singh S/o Birendra Singh Aged About 42 Years Posted At Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls Primary School, Ward No. 17, Block - Manendragarh Distt - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur 3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee, Distt - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Distt - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, Distt - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms Smita Jha, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P5), passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (MCB), by which representation of the petitioner has been rejected. This petition has also filed against the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P2), whereby the petitioner has been posted to the Primary School, Murkil, Block-Bharatpur, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.11.13 11:10:15 +0530 Wps 7015 of 2025 2 2. This is the 2nd round of limitation against the order dated 25.06.2025. Petitioner had filed WPS-5561 of 2025 before this Court which was disposed of on 20.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the concerned District Level Rationalization Committee within a period of 5 days of that order, and then, the Committee shall decide the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time frame in an objective manner. Pursuant to that order, petitioner has made his representation, and he was heard on his representation on 25.06.2025. Said representation has been rejected, against which, present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order dated 02.06.2025 is issued against the Rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. At the time of counseling, petitioner was not provided with proper opportunity of hearing, and he could not put up his grievances before the Committee. Counseling was done in very hasty manner. Teachers who were on probation are arbitrarily exempted from their rationalization. In Primary School, Ward- 17, Manendra Garh, strength of the students was 28. Another teacher Smt Sangeeta Dewangan was posted there on 28.03.2025, and due to administrative mistake, her order of posting could not be amended. Petitioner has been declared surplus at Primary School, Ward-17, Manendragarh. As per the set up fixed in the year 2008 of School, the Rationalization Instructions cannot be given priority, and the petitioner cannot be victimized by the same. By his posting, there would be shortage of teachers in the Primary School, Ward-17, Manendragarh. Against his posting order, he made representation but his representation has not been considered in accordance with law, and it has been rejected arbitrarily. Therefore, impugned order dated 25.06.2025, and 02.06.2025 are liable to be quashed. Wps 7015 of 2025 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State on instructions would submit that the representation of the petitioner has been considered under strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. In the Primary School, Ward-17, Manendra Garh, strength of the students was 38, and as per Clause- 7A (2) of the Rationalization Instructions, only one Head Master and one teacher were required, whereas, one Head Master, and three teachers were posted there, out of which, one teacher was on probation. As per Clause-10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, the teacher, who is on probation is exempted from rationalization, and therefore, except the Head Master, and the teacher, who was on probation, two other teachers were there, including the present petitioner, and they have been declared surplus. There is no arbitrariness, or mala fide, on the part of respondent authorities, while declaring the petitioner surplus at the Primary School, Ward-17, Manendragarh, and his representation has rightly been rejected. No good ground would be made out by the petitioner in the present writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Petitioner could not dispute that total strength of the students in the school is 38, though the petitioner disclosed in para-5 of his representation, Annexure P4 that the strength of the students in the school is 28. In the order dated 25.06.2025, the authorities have considered the strength of the students at Primary School, Ward-17, Manendragarh, as 38. In any case, it was less than 60, for which, the number of teachers required is of two, including the Head Master. As per the Rationalization Instructions, if the number of students Wps 7015 of 2025 4 in the school is less than 60, only Head Master and one Assistant Teacher are required there. That is the exact situation in the present case also. In the Primary School, Ward-17, Manendra Garh, less than 60 students are there, and one Head master and one Assistant Teacher, who was on probation are posted. Two other teachers, including the petitioner was also posted at the School, and in view of provisions of Clause-7A (2) of the Rationalization Instructions, they have been declared surplus. Further, Clause-10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, the teachers who are on probation, are exempted from rationalization. Therefore, declaring the petitioner surplus at Primary School, Ward-17, Manendragarh cannot be said to be arbitrary, or mala fide. Considering the provisions of Rationalization Instructions, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on 25.06.2025, and sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to him before passing of said order. Petitioner could not make out any palpable infirmity in the order impugned passed by the respondent authority, which warrants interference by this Court, in the impugned order dated 25.06.2025, or order dated 02.06.2025. 7. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the transfer/posting of an employee, as considered in the matters of Airport Authority of India v. Wps 7015 of 2025 5 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 does not find any scope of interference in this petition. Further, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 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 is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma