1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5730 of 2025 1 - Ganga Painkara W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, At Sages, Keshavpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions (D.P.I) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Division Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Alka Khaka Presently Posted As Lecturer, At Governmant Higher Secondary School, Latori, Ambilapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nishu Gupta Presently Posted As Lecturer, At Government High School, Ghanghari, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:53:28 +0530 2 04/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), by which she has been posted from SAGES, Keshavpur, Block Ambikapur, District Surguja to Govt. Girls Education Campus, Sukma, Block Sukma, District Sukma and prayed for 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 Education, Chhattisgarh. 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) (Chemistry) has been posted at SAGES, Keshavpur and by the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, she has been posted at Govt. Girls Education Campus, Sukma under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 exempted the SAGES/P.M. Shree schools from rationalization, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions, which is against the provisions of the Rationalization Instructions. He would further submit that the State Council of Educational Research and Training, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued a Memorandum on 03.03.2020 and as per clause B-4 of the said memorandum, it has been provided that, if the school is running in two shifts, the Lecturers shall be retained in the 3 same school and they may not be sent to the other school. The SAGES, Keshavpur is also running in two shifts, and therefore, she may not be sent to other school after declaring her surplus. Before declaring her surplus, her name was not published in any list of surplus lecturers and she was orally informed about the counseling. By the impugned order of her posting, she has been posted about 400 KMs away from the present place of her posting. Against declaring her surplus, she made her representation on 09.06.2025, yet without considering her objection, the order of posting has been issued on 12.06.2025. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the SAGES, Keshavpur school was having strength of 79 students in class 9th and 10th. As per the order dated 24.06.2022, issued by the School Education Department, 05 posts of Lecturers on deputation are sanctioned. There were 07 Lecturers in different subjects at SAGES, Keshavpur were posted including the petitioner and other 05 Lecturers on deputation. As per the Rationalization Instructions, if the subject period of Lecturers is less than 04, the junior most Lecturers shall be declared surplus. At SAGES, Keshavpur, Hindi Medium school, only one post of Lecturer (Science) is sanctioned and against the sanctioned post, the Lecturer (Biology) is posted on deputation. In the school, in class 9th and 10th only two subject periods of Science is running and therefore, the two other Lecturers, except the Lecturers on deputation have been declared surplus, in which one is the petitioner. He would further submit that in the District Level counseling, only four posts were vacant 4 for Chemistry subject, but the name of the petitioner does not come under the merit list, and therefore, her name was recommended for Divisional Level counseling, and thereafter, the State Level counseling. The petitioner has no ground to challenge her order of posting and there is no violation of any provision of Rationalization Instructions, 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 main grievance of the petitioner against her order of posting is that, as per clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the SAGES/P.M. Shree schools are exempted from rationalization, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus under the rationalization. From perusal of clause 2.14 of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, it transpires that it is only the schools have been exempted from rationalization/merger, but there is no restriction that the Teachers/Lecturers cannot be rationalized. Clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 is necessary to reproduce here, which reproduced hereinunder:- “nks:- युሹኌयुሹኌकरण हे तु शा ला ओं क ሹኌन्हे कन एवं युሹኌयुकरण क ्ቚሹኌयु :- 14. ሹኌवंቕኋ लायु क युሹኌयुकरण क ्ቚሹኌयु ेሰ स्वं ेሰ आत्ेሰ नद उत्क# ्቗ ሹኌहेन्द/अंቇኔ जी ेሰ ध्युेሰ ሹኌवंቕኋ लायु/पीएेሰ ቦኍ ሹኌवंቕኋ लायु क सेሰ यु,जीन नहे- ሹኌकयु जी यु गा ।” 6. Another ground raised by the petitioner that SAGES, Keshavpur is running in two shifts and as per the Memo dated 03.03.2020, issued by the SCERT, the petitioner cannot be sent or redeployed to other 5 school. However, as per the instructions submitted by the State counsel, the SAGES Hindi Medium School, Keshavpur is having 79 students in class 9th and 10th and one post of Lecturer (Science) was sanctioned. Against the one sanctioned post, other Lecturer on deputation is posted and only two subject periods for class 9th and 10th are running. From the circular issued on 24.06.2022 by the State Government, for Hindi Medium SAGES school, 05 posts of Lecturers on deputation are sanctioned and at SAGES Hindi Medium School, Keshavpur, total 07 Lecturers are working in different subjects including 05 Lecturers on deputation and 02 Lecturers on regular posting, amongst them, one is the petitioner. The manner in which the petitioner has been declared surplus, does not suffer from any infirmity or arbitrariness, which makes it entitled for any interference. Further, from the instructions, it also transpires that only 04 posts of Lecturer (Chemistry) was available in District Level counseling, however the petitioner could not find place as per her seniority and thereafter her name was recommended to Divisional level counseling and ultimately to the State level counseling and she has been posted at Govt. Girls Education Campus, Sukma. This Court does not find any palpable infirmity in declaring her surplus and order of her posting. 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, 6 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. 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 order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved