1 2025:CGHC:53208-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 782 of 2025 Vivek Kumar Sinha S/o Late B.K. Sinha Aged About 38 Years Posted As Teacher (Maths), Govt Middle School, Barkela, Block- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector District District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Block Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Alok Raj David Teacher Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kaushal Kishore Teacher Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Aakash Sharma Teacher Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.01 11:32:33 +0530 2 8 - Jitendra Yadav Teacher Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31 .10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 42 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.02), the same is allowed. Delay of 42 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. To Kindly set aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.S. 5378/2025, as the same suffers from errors apparent on the face 3 of the record and has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant; ii. To Kindly allow the writ petition of the appellant by quashing the posting orders dated 03.06.2025 and 09.06.2025, being ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the very principles of rationalization; iii. In the alternative, be pleased to permit the appellant to approach the Committee constituted under the Rationalization Policy for redressal of his grievance, with an observation that the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge shall not come in the way of the Committee while considering and deciding the claim of the appellant on its own merits; and iv. To Kindly pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5378/2025 (Vivek Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was serving as a Teacher and 4 was posted at Middle School, Barkela. He was declared surplus and consequently transferred to Middle School, Maniyari. The petitioner was senior to other teachers in the school as per their respective dates of joining; however, in violation of Clause 7-B(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he was declared surplus. It was further alleged that respondent No.6 was retained on the ground of being a probationer, while the petitioner was declared surplus, resulting in violation of the said Rationalization Instructions. Hence, the impugned order of posting issued under the Rationalization process was alleged to be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 6. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.5378/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.06.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPS No.5378/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant/writ petitioner was the senior-most teacher at his place of posting, having joined on 02.04.2013, and therefore could not have been declared surplus under any circumstance. It is urged that, as per 5 the Rationalization Policy, only the junior-most teachers are to be declared surplus, yet the petitioner, being senior, was wrongly denied relief. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court without appreciating that the Rationalization Policy is being uniformly implemented across the State and that similarly situated teachers have been granted protection and relief by this Court in comparable matters. Denying the same benefit to the appellant amounts to arbitrariness and discrimination. 9. Learned counsel contends that the object of the Rationalization Policy is to maintain a balanced teacher-student ratio, and such adjustment should begin with junior-most teachers. The State cannot invoke Clause 10(6) of the Policy in a manner that places senior teachers under the purview of rationalization, contrary to the intent of the Policy. It is also urged that the appellant/writ petitioner is the only Mathematics teacher in the present school and has been serving continuously since 2013. As per Clause B(05) of the Policy, surplus determination must be subject-wise in the order of English, Mathematics, Art, Science, Hindi, and Sanskrit/Urdu/Commerce. Accordingly, it was Shri Alok Raj, a Science teacher, who ought to have been declared surplus instead of the appellant/writ petitioner. 10. Learned counsel further submits that in other schools, surplus lists were prepared considering both the date of joining and subject 6 preference, but in the writ petitioner’s case, only the subject-wise criterion was selectively applied, resulting in discrimination and the private respondents, being junior, could not have been retained in preference to the appellant/writ petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the impugned orders dated 03.06.2025 and 09.06.2025 have been issued contrary to the Rationalization Policy, which is binding in nature and must be followed in letter and spirit. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the rationalization process was carried out strictly in accordance with the instructions dated 02.08.2024. It is contended that the appellant/writ petitioner was rightly declared surplus based on subject-wise strength and student ratio as per the prescribed norms, and no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the authorities. The retention of respondent No.6, being a probationer, is stated to be in conformity with Clause 10(6) of the Rationalization Policy, which provides for such exemption. It is further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has already been accommodated at Middle School, Maniyari, and therefore no prejudice has been caused to him warranting interference by this Court. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner be dismissed. 7 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed in WPS No.5378/2025. 13. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “5. The petitioner has claimed that he is posted as teacher and senior inthe school than the other teachers and he may not be declaredsurplus. The petitioner has joined in the school on 02.04.2013,whereas the other teacher Alok Raj David has joined on 12.06.2023. Clause 7-B(5) provided the rotation of subjects, under which the teachers are to be considered for their regularization, which reads as under:- xxx 6. The other teacher Kaushal Kishore Thakur is appointed in the school on 31.08.2023 on probation of 03 years and presently he is on proration, and therefore, as per clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, he cannot be declared surplus. Since, the teacher, who is on probation cannot be declared surplus, as per the rotation provided under clause 7- B(5) of Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The petitioner could not demonstrate any 8 palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 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 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 9 and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 14. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on due appreciation of the materials placed on record, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Rationalization Instructions are administrative guidelines meant to facilitate effective deployment of teachers in public interest, and that the process undertaken by the authorities does not reflect any arbitrariness, mala fide, or violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner’s claim of seniority, in the face of Clause 10(6) exempting probationers and the subject-wise rotation under Clause 7-B(5), has been duly considered and rejected with cogent reasoning. 15. It is also pertinent to note that this Court, in a similar set of facts, has dismissed Writ Appeal No. 529/2025 vide judgment dated 28.07.2025, holding that the rationalization process undertaken by the authorities is a policy-driven administrative exercise not warranting judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or contrary to statutory provisions. 16. In view of the settled legal position that matters relating to transfer and posting fall within the administrative domain of the employer 10 and interference by the Court is warranted only in cases of mala fide or violation of statutory rules, which is not demonstrated herein, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu