1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5656 of 2025 1 - Pravin Chandra Palia S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Palia Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School - Bhulsidih, Block - Korba, District - Korba, R/o M-437, Pump House, Ward No.-10, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer Podi-Uproda, District - Korba (C.G.) 8 - Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School - Bhulsidih, Block - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Suresh Kumar Raj Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School - Bhulsidih, Block - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.06 17:06:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is Assistant Teacher (LB) was posted at Primary School, Bhulsidih, Block Korba, has been posted to Primary School, Bagnakhapara, Block Podi-Uproda under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was posted on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Primary School, Bhulsidih vide order dated 09.07.2010. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he has been declared surplus and has been posted at Primary School, Bagnakhapara, Block Podi-Uproda. He is the senior most teacher after the headmaster of the school and during while declaring him surplus, his seniority has been ignored. Though, two other teachers were also there, who came under the physically disabled quota, however his seniority should also be considered. Against the impugned order of declaring him surplus, he made a representation on 30.05.2025, however his posting order has been issued on 31.05.2025, but the same has not been considered, and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the two other teachers posted in the school are under the physically disabled category, which reflected from the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2025 itself. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that 3 the teachers, who are appointed under the physically disabled quota should be exempted from rationalization and other teachers are to be considered are to be considered for rationalization. In view of the strength of the students in the school, the petitioner is declared surplus, because the headmaster and other teachers, who were physically disabled cannot be considered for rationalization, and therefore, the rationalization of the petitioner and his posting to Primary School, Bagnakhapara is strictly in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, therefore, there is no ground in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 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) and is posted at Primary School, Bhulsidih, has been posted to Primary School, Bagnakhapara under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The claim of the petitioner that he being the senior most teacher in the school after the headmaster, he cannot be declared surplus, when the other two teachers, juniors to him, are available in the school, although they are under the physically disabled category. It is the contention of the petitioner himself in his representation (Annexure P/4) that the two other teachers posted in the school are under the physically disabled category. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that, the teachers posted under the physically disabled quota, should be exempted from rationalization, which reads as under:- 4 “दस:- काउंसलिंग का प्रक्रिया:- अक्रिशेष क्रिशेक्षका का पदस्थापना परदशे काउंसलिंग का माध्यामा स का जायाग!। इसका प्रक्रिया क्रिनाम्नाना%सर हो'ग!:- 4. काउंसलिंग हो% लिंजाना क्रिशेक्षका अक्रिशेष हो( उंना! हो! सख्या मा* क्रिशेक्षका क्रि+हो!ना, एका क्रिशेक्षका या ए+ अलिं-का दजा. सख्या + क्रि+द्याया का दक्रिशे. क्रिकाया जाया। क्रिकान्% +हो याहो ध्याना मा* रखा जायाग क्रिका, सभी! क्रिशेक्षका क्रि+हो!ना क्रि+द्याया ए+ इसका पश्चा5 सभी! एका क्रिशेक्षका या क्रि+द्याया का' अक्रिना+या. रूप स दक्रिशे. क्रिकाया जाया। rnuqijkar आ+श्याकाना%सर अलिं-का दजा. सख्या + क्रि+द्याया का दक्रिशे. क्रिकाया जाया।” 6. Clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 clearly provides that the teachers under the physically disabled quota are to be exempted from rationalization and the other teachers would be considered surplus in the school. In that process of consideration, the petitioner is declared surplus in the school and has been posted to Primary School, Bagnakhapara. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in rationalization of the petitioner and the order of his posting. 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 5 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. 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 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved