1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6338 of 2025 1 - Jeera Yadav W/o Bhuleshwar Yadav Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted Lecturer (L.B.) (Economics) At Government Higher Secondary School Bandana, Block Mainpur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction (Dip) Through Its Director Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Division Surguja (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Smita Singh Presently Posted Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Khaliba Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Suman Tigga Presently Posted Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Sakhauli Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.01 18:21:34 +0530 2 11/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order of her posting dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB) (Economics/Geography), has been posted from Higher Secondary School, Bandana, Block Mainpat, District Surguja to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beharchua, Block Kartala, District Korba under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction, Naya Raipur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/reliefs in favor of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Lecturer (LB) and presently posted at Higher Secondary School, Bandana, Block Mainpat. She has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beharchua. The name of the petitioner is not in the District level and Divisional level list, however, her name was directly appeared in the State level list of surplus lecturers and without affording proper opportunity, she has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beharchua. The petitioner is the senior lecturer in the school than the respondents No. 6 and 7, yet she has been declared surplus and has been posted at 3 Beharchua school. He would also submit that there is violation of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The other junior lecturers in the school have been posted within the District Surguja, whereas the petitioner has been posted at other district, which is far away from the present place of posting. While rationalizing, the seniority of the petitioner as well as private respondents have also not been considered by the authorities, which is violative of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is a Lecturer (Economics) and another lecturer Vijay Tirkey is Lecturer (Geography). The subject of Economics and Geography are being considered in the same pool. The petitioner had joined in the school on 08.10.2008, whereas Mr. Vijay Tirkey had joined on 04.10.2008. The name of the petitioner is found place at S.No. 33 in the District level list of surplus lecturers. Since, only one post of Lecturer (Economics) was vacant in the district, Smt. Apolina Tigga was called for counseling and in view of the available vacant post and their merit position in the list of surplus lecturers, they have been called for counseling in the Divisional level and she has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beharchua, Block Kartala. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4 5. The petitioner has claimed that she is posted as Lecturer (LB) (Economics/Geography) and her seniority has not been considered as per their gradation list and she has been erroneously declared surplus. From the instructions submitted by the State, it transpires that the petitioner had joined in the school on 08.10.2008, whereas one Mr. Vijay Tirkey, Lecturer had joined in the school on 04.10.2008, and thus, the petitioner is junior to Mr. Vijay Tirkey as per their date of joining in the school. The petitioner has been declared surplus and her name appears at S. No. 33 of District level list of surplus lecturers, and since only one vacant post of Lecturer (Economics) was available in the district, the petitioner has not been called for counseling and her merit position is in the lower side. Further, the State has considered the Economics and Geography subject in the same pool. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 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 5 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, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved