1 2025:CGHC:56231-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 836 of 2025 Jitesh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Dashrath Singh Thakur Aged About 44 Years Posted As Lecturer At Government Higher Secondary School Sirpur Block And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate of Public Instructions (DPI) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Sirpur, Block And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Amlor, Block And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 .11.2025 1 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for State/respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.11368/2025 (Jitesh Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 3 Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, were as follows: • The appellant/writ petitioner had called in question the order dated 01.06.2025 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby he had been transferred under the Rationalisation Policy from Government Higher Secondary School, Sirpur, Block Mahasamund to Government High School, Almor, Block Mahasamund. He had further challenged the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Level Committee rejecting his representation, as well as the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Divisional Level Committee whereby his appeal/representation had been dismissed. • It was the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he was working as Lecturer (Biology) and that the strength of the School at Sirpur was 241 students, where he had been required to teach Science subjects, namely Biology, Chemistry and Physics for Classes 9th and 10th, and Biology for Classes 11th and 12th. According to him, two Biology teachers were already posted in the institution, and if he were relieved, the existing academic arrangement would 3 be adversely affected, resulting in the remaining teachers having to take teaching periods far in excess of the workload prescribed by the State Government. • It had been further contended that the School at Almor, to which he had been transferred, had a total strength of only 56 students and already had a Science teacher in position. Therefore, there had been no justifiable basis for declaring the appellant/writ petitioner surplus under the Rationalisation Policy, and the impugned transfer lacked factual foundation as well as administrative justification. 4 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge being WPS No.11368/2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2025. 5 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPS No.11368/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and suffers from non- consideration of material facts. The appellant/writ petitioner was working on a duly sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) at 4 Government Higher Secondary School, Sirpur, as confirmed by the Principal’s letter and RTI replies showing existence of two sanctioned Biology posts. He further submits that under Clause 7(c)(3) of the Rationalisation Policy dated 02.08.2024, a lecturer can be declared surplus only when more than one lecturer works against one sanctioned post; hence declaring the appellant surplus despite two sanctioned posts is arbitrary and contrary to policy. The authorities failed to verify the sanctioned strength before treating the appellant as surplus, and both the District and Divisional Committees rejected his representations mechanically without considering this fundamental fact. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contends that the transfer order dated 01.06.2025 ignored the sanctioned staffing pattern and disturbed the academic balance of the institution, rendering the action arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was occupying a sanctioned post and mechanically upheld the impugned action, resulting in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant had specifically submitted that the student strength at Sirpur was 241, requiring two Biology lecturers for teaching Science subjects from Classes 9th to 12th. His transfer has resulted in shortage of Science teachers and disruption of the academic setup—an aspect overlooked by the learned Single Judge. The appellant, substantively appointed as Lecturer for 5 teaching Higher Secondary classes (11th and 12th), was transferred to a school where such classes are not conducted. This posting is arbitrary, contrary to service conditions, and detrimental to his academic responsibilities and career progression. 8 It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the Government High School, Almor, where he was transferred, has only 56 students and already a Science teacher. The transfer therefore defeats the objective of rationalisation based on student strength and subject requirement. The transfer order and subsequent rejection orders were passed without applying the Rationalisation Policy or conducting any comparative assessment of student strength, teachers, or subject requirements. The learned Single Judge failed to scrutinize this aspect. The Rationalisation Policy requires redistribution of teachers only where real surplus and deficiency exist. In the appellant’s case, neither existed, yet he was transferred. The finding that “one teacher is sufficient” is factually incorrect and contrary to departmental norms. The action is discriminatory, as other similarly situated teachers with lesser workload were retained while the appellant alone was declared surplus. Hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the impugned order calls for no interference, as the 6 learned Single Judge has examined all relevant aspects and recorded well-reasoned findings. It is urged that the transfer was issued strictly in accordance with the Rationalisation Policy, based on the assessment of workload and institutional requirements. The appellant was rightly identified as surplus and posted where a Science teacher was required, and no illegality has been committed by the authorities. It is further submitted that the transfer is an incidence of service, and unless malafide or statutory violation is shown which is not the case, as such interference is unwarranted. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the administrative decision after considering the relevant material and found no ground to interfere. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10 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 13.10.2025 passed in WPS No.11368/2025. 11 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. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is quite vivid that there are two Biology teachers in the present set up and for imparting education in science subject to 9th and 10th one teacher is sufficient and since one 7 Chemistry teacher is also working, therefore, the petitioner being junior to another Biology teacher he has rightly been declared as Surplus. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that utilsation of the manpower is within the domain of employer. Until and unless, there is breach of the Rationalization Policy has been pointed out by the petitioner, this Court cannot interfere in the matter. No such irregularity or illegality has been pointed out by the petitioner, which warrants interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be and is dismissed.” 12 Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, examined the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The finding that the appellant/writ petitioner was the junior-most among the two Biology teachers and was, therefore, rightly treated as surplus in terms of the Rationalisation Policy, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to record. 13 The assessment of workload, student strength, and distribution of teachers is an administrative function within the exclusive domain of the employer, and unless the action is demonstrated to be vitiated by malafide, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory policy, no interference is warranted in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appellant has failed to establish any breach of the 8 Rationalisation Policy dated 02.08.2024 or to demonstrate that the impugned transfer order suffers from any illegality or procedural irregularity. 14 We also find that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the factual matrix, applied the governing principles of law, and recorded a well-reasoned finding that no ground for judicial interference was made out. The submissions advanced before us are substantially the same as those urged before the learned Single Judge, and no new circumstance has been brought to our notice which may persuade us to take a different view. 15 In view of the above, we find no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.11368/2025 warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order calls for no interference. 16 Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra