1 2025:CGHC:36295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7461 of 2025 1 - Smt. Aylin Beck W/o Devbrat Prasad Aged About 45 Years Lecturer And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Jarhadih Block - Balrampur Distt- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan Atalnagar Nava Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balrampur/ Chairman Of Of District Level Rationalization Committee Distt- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Balrampur Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Balrampur Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and also against the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:56:46 +0530 2 P/2) with respect to the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/12), by which she has been posted from Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi Medium School, Balrampur to Higher Secondary School, Lodha, Block Ramchandrapur and also the relieving order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/13) and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 26.6.2025 issued by the respondent no.3 ANNEXURE P/1 and further be please to set side of the order dated 3.6.2025 in respect of petitioner issued by the respondent no.3 ANNEXURE P/2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of posting of the petitioner dated 4.6.2025 ANNEXURE P/12 as well as reliving order dated 12.6.2025 issued by the respondent no.4 ANNEXURE P/13 and allow the petitioner to continue on the post of lecturer Chemistry Subject at Govt. Atmanand Swami Atmanand Upgraded Hindi (Medium School - Jarhadih Block-Balrampur Distt-Balrampur (CG). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the enter rationalization process in respect of the petitioner initiated by the respondent no.3 by treating the petitioner as surplus lecture of Chemistry subject from the present place of posting. 10.4. Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4505 of 2025, which was disposed of on 13.06.2025 with liberty to make fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, who shall decide the same within the 3 stipulated time frame. On 26.06.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee by saying that, the other subject lecturer of Chemistry in the school is guest lecturer and guest lecturers are exempted from rationalization. He would further submit that as per clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, Swami Atmanand Hindi/English Medium Schools and P.M. Shree Schools are exempted from rationalization and the petitioner was posted at Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi Medium School, she cannot be considered for rationalization. Her place of posting was at Swami Atmanand Hindi Medium School, Jarhadih, but her posting has been wrongly considered as Balrampur school. The posting of the guest lecturers would only be applicable up to the posting of the regular lecturer and despite the posting of the petitioner, the guest lecturer was working there since 2019, which is against the conditions of posting of guest lecturers and since the guest lecturers are exempted from rationalization, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The representation of the petitioner has been decided mechanically and without assigning any sufficient reason. Therefore, the impugned orders with respect to posting of the petitioner and rejection of his representation are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the total strength of the students at Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi Medium School, Jarhadih was 614 and one sanctioned post of Lecturer (Chemistry) was available there. Since two lecturers for Chemistry subject were posted, out of which 4 the other lecturer is the guest lecturer, the petitioner has been declared surplus, because the guest lecturers are exempted from rationalization as provided under clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions. He would further submit that, although the SAGES and P.M. Shree schools are exempted from merger, however, there is no restrictions of the rationalization of the lecturers, who are posted there. Therefore, the rationalization of the petitioner for posting as well as rejection of her representation are justified and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, is a Lecturer (Chemistry) was posted at Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi Medium School, Jarhadih, Block Balrampur and is posted at Higher Secondary School, Lodha, Block Ramchandrapur under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. It transpires from the order dated 26.06.2025 that the strength of the students at Swami Atmanand Excellence Hindi Medium School, Jarhadih is 614 and one post of lecturer (Chemistry) is sanctioned. There are two lecturers for Chemistry subject are working, out of which the other lecturer is a guest lecturer. Clause 5.3 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 clearly provides that, if the other lecturers are guest lecturers, the regular lecturers of the school shall be treated as surplus. Clause 5.3 is necessary to reproduce here, which is reproduced hereinunder:- “ikap - श㘿्䵌ो䬗 ो䬗 य⽁ श㘿 य⽁ ो䬗रण:- श㘿्䵌ो䬗 ो䬗 य⽁ श㘿 य⽁ ो䬗रण 5 श㘿 म⹍ स㠾र श㘿ो䬗य⽁ ज᰾य⽁ग᜾ :- 3. ह㤾ईस㡍ो䬗 ल एव㔂 ह㤾य⽁र स㠾ो䬗 ण⍍डर स㡍ो䬗 ल े䜰 एो䬗 श㘿व㔂षय⽁ ो䬗 ल㈿लय⽁ स㡍व㔂ो䬗" त पद ो䬗 श㘿व㔂रぁ्䵍 एो䬗 स㠾 अल㈿)ो䬗 ो䬗य⽁*स㡍त व㕍य⽁खᙍय⽁त े䜰 स㠾 अश㘿तष ो䬗 य⽁ श㘿 य⽁ ो䬗रण। य⽁श㘿द श㘿ो䬗स㠾 ह㤾ईस㡍ो䬗 ल/ह㤾य⽁र स㠾ो䬗 ण⍍डर स㡍ो䬗 ल े䜰 अश㘿तल㈿. श㘿्䵌ो䬗 पदस㡍. ह㤾/ त0, उस㠾 श㘿व㔂ቕ喋लय⽁ ो䬗 श㘿 य⽁श㘿े䜰त व㕍य⽁खᙍय⽁त ो䬗0 अश㘿तष ो䬗3 ቦ暔ण े䜰 रखᘾ ज᰾य⽁ग᜾।” 6. In view of the provisions of clause 5.3 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner has been declared surplus, in which this Court does not find any infirmity or arbitrariness in the posting order of the petitioner under the Rationalization Instructions. The representation of the petitioner has also been considered by the District Level Rationalization Committee in accordance with the provisions of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the same does not suffer from any perversity. The other grounds raised by the petitioner that the husband and wife should be posted at the same place is also not available to the petitioner, because, there is no provisions under the Rationalization Instructions to be posted both of them at the same place. 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 6 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. 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 orders dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/12) and 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/13) are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved