1 2025:CGHC:50119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11729 of 2025 1 - Yashwant Kumar Dhruw S/o Gopal Singh Dhruw Aged About 44 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Kanidabri District Dhamtari C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08/10/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P/1 and may be allowed to continue at Govt. M.S. Kanidabri in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the rationalization scheme/policy, the petitioner who is working as Teacher (LB) and was posted at Government Middle School, Kanidabri, District – Dhamtari was transferred SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 and posted at Government Middle School, Urputi vide order dated 04.06.2025. However, surprisingly, on the very next day i.e. 05.06.2025, the said order of transfer and posting dated 04.06.2025 was canceled vide order dated 05.06.2025. 3. The petitioner, thereafter had submitted a representation before the Committee constituted under the Rationalization Scheme at the Divisional Level, however, his representation was rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) and it was rejected only on the ground that post of Arts Teacher was not vacant on the transferred place of posting i.e. Government Middle School, Urputi. He contended that this cannot be a ground for rejection and canceling the order of transfer and posting dated 04.06.2025 as for posting of Teachers in Middle School, subjects are not a consideration, but only the Teachers who are in excess can be posted irrespective of their subject of teaching. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner is having an alternate remedy available under the Rationalization Scheme/Policy of the State Government for preferring an appeal before the State Level Committee which is presided over by the Secretary. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the objection raised by the counsel for the Respondent/State that the petitioner is having an alternate remedy to prefer an appeal before the State level Committee under the Rationalization Scheme/Policy, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition at this stage, with liberty to avail the other alternate remedy available as discussed above. He, however submits that direction be issued to the committee to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner at the earliest. 6. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, 3 considering the submission of petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner may prefer an appeal before the State Level Committee within a period of 10 days of passing of this order and further, the Committee shall decide the representation to be submitted by the petitioner within a period of 04 weeks from the date of filing of the representation of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid observations and directions. 8. Certified copy as per rules. Sd Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey