1 2025:CGHC:36405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7653 of 2025 1 - Kumari Rana W/o T.R. Rana, Aged About 49 Years, At Present Working on The Post of Pradhan Adhyapak (LB), Bal Ashram, Kulgaon, Vikaskhand- Kanker, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh, First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector North Baster, Kanker, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, North Baster, Kanker, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vikaskhand Education Officer, North Baster, Kanker, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raghunandan Shori, Aged About 54 Years Working on the Post of Headmaster/ Pradhan Pathak Bal Ashram, Kulgaon, Vikaskhand- Kanker, District North Baster, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 28-07-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.11.11 18:20:33 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 02-06-2025 by which the petitioner has been declared surplus at Balak Ashram Kulgaon, Kanker and order of her posting dated 05- 06-2025 by which the petitioner has been posted at Primary School Gawadi, Block Antagarh under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Head Master (LB) at Govt. Balak Ashram Kulgaon, Kanker. She was declared surplus and has been posted at Primary School Gawadi vide order dated 05-06-2025. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master Primary School vide order dated 22-06-2022 and was posted at Balak Ashram Kulgaon. As per clause 7A(4) of the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 the seniority of the teachers in the school is to be counted from the date of their respective joining in the school and the petitioner had joined in the school in the year 2014 and the respondent No.6 had joined in the year 2022 and therefore, the petitioner being the senior to respondent No.6 she cannot be treated as surplus. During the concelling held on 02-06-2025 she raised her objection, but her objection has not been considered and therefore, her order of posting is against the rationalization instructions which is liable to be quashed. He would also submit that the respondent No.6 had joined in the school vide order dated 19-10-2022, whereas, the petitioner has been posed in the school vide order dated 22-06- 2022 and she being the senior teacher in the school cannot be rationalized in view of the provision of clause 7A(4) of the Rationalization Instructions and her posting order is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions would submit that the authorities have considered the date of joining in the school on their respective posts of the teachers and after examining their service records, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at 3 Primary School Gawadi. Though the petitioner claims that she was posted as Head Master at Balak Ashram Kulgaon vide order dated 22-06-2022, but she has not disclosed as to on which date she has joined on the said post in the school. There is no sufficient material produced by the petitioner in the writ petition by which it can be considered that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6 in the school and there is violation of clause 7A(4) of the Rationalization Instructions. Even in the document annexed with the petition at page No.29, the date of joining of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 is given which is not relevant for consideration under the Rationalization Instructions and it is the date of joining in the school that would be relevant consideration and therefore, there is no ground made out by the petitioner to interfere in her posting order and her writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. True it is, that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master Primary School vide order dated 22-06-2022 and she was posted at Balak Ashram Kulgaon, however, she could not disclose as to on which date she was given charge of Superintendent Balak Ashram Kulgaon, whereas respondent No.6 has been posted as Superintendent Balak Ashram Kulgaon vide order dated 19-10-2022. Though the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master Primary School vide order dated 22-06-2022 and from the order dated 19-10-2022 with respect to respondent No.6 posting as Superintendent Balak Ashram Kulgaon, it transpires that she was also posted as Head Master Balak Ashram Kulgaon and she has been made Superintendent of Balak Ashram Kulgaon vide order dated 19-10-2022, but in view of these documents, the petitioner could not demonstrate that she had joined in the school as Head Master/Superintendent before joining of respondent No.6. She could not annex the sufficient documents with respect 4 to her posting and joining as Superintendent Balak Ashram Kulgaon. The authorities after considering the service record of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 declared the petitioner surplus and posted her at Primary School Gawadi, Block Antagarh. She could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in her posting order dated 05-06-2025. 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. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil