1 2025:CGHC:41321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9524 of 2025 1 - Smt. Garima Chauhan W/o Ramayan, Aged About 36 Years, Working As Assistant Teacher (LB) and Posted at Govt. Primary School Kesla, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer and Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Varsha Hardaha W/o Shri Pavan Kumar Hardaha, Aged About 36 Years, Working as Assistant Teacher (LB) and Posted at Govt. Primary School Kesla, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jatin Yadav, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 14-08-2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.11.11 18:41:11 +0530 2 impugned order dated 17-07-2025 by which the petitioner has been posted at Primary School Darga, Block Korba from Primary School Kesla, Block Korba under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is Assistant Teacher (LB) and presently posted at Primary School Kesla, Block Korba. Initially one Smt. Varsha Hardaha who was posted at Govt. Primary School Kesla was declared surplus and she has been posted at Primary School Chhindkona, Block Korba. Smt. Varsha Hardaha had challenged her posting order dated 31-05-2025 and 04-06-2025 before this Court in WPS No.5088/2025. During the pendency of that writ petition the respondent authorities have considered her representation and her posting order was cancelled and thereafter, the petitioner has been declared surplus at Primary School Kesla and she has been posted at Primary School Darga under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from sickle cell anemia and disability certificate of 40% permanent disability has been issued by the District Hospital Korba on 14-02-2024. As per clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions, the person who comes under the physically disabled quota cannot be considered for rationalization, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions. Against her order of posting she made representation to the authorities on 05-08-2025, but the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the impugned order of her posting may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions would submit that earlier Smt. Varsha Hardaha was declared as surplus and after examining her representation when it was found that the joining of the present petitioner was not under the physically disabled quota and due to the mistake of the authority she was considered under the physically disable quota, the posting order of Smt. Varsha Hardaha was cancelled and the 3 present petitioner has been declared surplus and posted at Primary School Darga. The petitioner is junior to Smt. Varsha Hardaha and therefore, the junior most teacher of the school has been declared surplus. He would also submit that the disability certificate of the petitioner has been issued in the month of February, 2024 and as per clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 the benefit of the disability and exemption from rationalization can be extended to those employees whose appointment have been made under the physically disabled quota. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of her disability certificate issued in the month of February, 2024 and she has rightly been declared surplus and posted at Primary School Darga. Therefore, there is no merit in her petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Undisputed facts of the case are that the disability certificate to the extent of 40% permanent disability has been issued to the petitioner on 14-02-2024 by the District Medical Board, Korba. As per the certificate issued to the petitioner, she is suffering from sickle cell disease. From her representation Annexure P/6 it transpires that she has made an application for adding her disability in her service record in the year 2024 which clearly shows that her appointment was not under the physically disabled quota, whereas, clause 10.5 of the Rationalization Instructions clearly provides that the benefit under clause 10.5 would be extended to those employees whose appointment have been made under the physically disabled quota. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed under the physically disabled quota. Although she is suffering from sickle cell disease and certificate has also been issued by the District Medical Board, however, it is for the authorities concerned to consider her disability and to post her to any suitable place subject to availability of the post or subject to any impediment for her posting. The petitioner could not 4 demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the order of her posting which warrants interference in the impugned order dated 17-07-2025. 6. 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 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. 7. 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, I do not find any scope of interference through the present petition and the present writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue her representation before the authorities concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil