1 2025:CGHC:36297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7425 of 2025 1 - Tirthanand Naik S/o Shri Dohitram Naik Aged About 59 Years Occupation Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Lodhajhar Block Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) R/o Village And Post Mura, Tahsil Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Block -3 First Floor Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector/ President Of District Rationalization Committee District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer / Secretary Of District Rationalization Committee, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, 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 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the representation of VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:56:02 +0530 2 the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and also against the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), by which he has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Lodhajhar, Block Kharsia to Govt. Middle School, Chiraikhar, Block Lailunga and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been posted/transferred from Government Middle School, Lodhajhar, Block Kharsiya, District - Raigarh to Government Middle School, Chiraikhar, Block Lailunga, District – Raigarh. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 on the basis of decision of District Rationalization Committee, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ /order/ direction to respondent authority to permit the petitioner to discharge his duty at Government Middle School, Lodhajhar, Block Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 10.4 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 03.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4535 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 20.06.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee by saying that, as per the seniority and subject rotation, the teachers have been declared surplus, in which the petitioner has also been declared surplus. He would further submit that in the Govt. Middle School, Lodhajhar, two teachers in Maths subject were posted, out of which one is headmaster and another was on probation. The probation period of second teacher was completed on 10.05.2025. However, for want of any specific order with respect to completion of his probation period, he has been exempted from rationalization and the petitioner has been declared surplus. He being the senior teacher, should have been given priority in the posting. The headmaster of the school is having only six months of his remaining tenure and the petitioner is having 36 months in his remaining tenure. He is having difficulties in traveling due to his accidental injuries, and therefore, the rejection of his representation is arbitrary. There is violation of clause 7-B(5) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the petitioner has been considered as Teacher (Hindi). After the transfer of the petitioner, there would be no teacher of Hindi subject at Lodhajhar school, therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner and the order dated 20.06.2025 rejecting the representation of the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, on the basis of the subject, in which the petitioner was teaching in the school, he was put for consideration under the subject rotation as provided under clause 7-B(5) of the 4 Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and after declaring him surplus, he has been posted on the vacant post available in the school. The claim of the petitioner that the other teacher in Maths subject should be declared surplus and the petitioner should remain posted there for Hindi subject, would not be considered in view of the subject rotation and available vacant post in the school. Clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that the teachers, who are on probation, are exempted from rationalization, therefore, the strength of the students in the school, availability of vacant posts and considering the provisions of Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School, Chiraikhar and after considering the entire material available with the District Level Rationalization Committee, his representation has been rejected. Therefore, there is no merit in the 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 a Teacher (LB) was posted at Govt. Middle School, Lodhajhar and under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School, Chiraikhar. The claim of the petitioner that the other teacher posted in the school was a Maths teacher and his probation period was over on 10.05.2025 and therefore, he cannot be considered for exemption under clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, yet he has been benefited by the same, is not appealing to this Court. In absence of any specific order with respect to completion of the 5 probation period, the other teacher cannot be considered to be a regular teacher, because, the probation period can be extended by the authorities. It is for the authorities concerned to consider the strength of the students in the school, subject of the teachers, in which they are teaching in the school, available vacant post and their date of joining in the school for subject rotation as provided under clause 7-B(5) of the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in rationalization of the petitioner and the order of his posting. 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 6 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 orders dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved