1 2026:CGHC:22747-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 463 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Kumar Soni S/o Late Prahlad Kumar Soni, Aged About 43 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B) At Govt Primary School Mana Basti, Block- Dharsiwa District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director, Education Division Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer, Dharsiwa District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Appellant (Petitioner) Pradeep Kumar Soni in person. For State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.18 15:46:51 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 14-05-2026 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2360 of 2026 (Pradeep Kumar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein) has been dismissed. 2. Facts as per the petitioner/appellant are that, the petitioner/appellant is currently employed as an Assistant Teacher (L.B.) at Government Primary School, Mana Basti, Block Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, under the Department of School Education. He has been performing his duties diligently and has a clean service record with no complaints against him. Earlier, he was attached to Government Primary School, Baratnara, Block Dharsiwa, as per an order dated 16.01.2024 issued by the District Education Officer, Raipur, and had been working there continuously. In August 2024, the respondent issued guidelines for rationalization of teachers, requiring identification of surplus teachers and their transfer to other schools with vacant posts. According to these guidelines, the petitioner is considered an excess teacher at his current school and may be declared surplus in the future. The petitioner also obtained information under the RTI Act, 2005, revealing that in the academic session 2025–26, the school has 32 students and 4 teachers, indicating a surplus of staff. The petitioner challenged his relieving order in a writ petition, which was dismissed on 3 19.01.2026, with the Court permitting him to submit fresh representations for posting to a school with a vacant position. Following the Court’s direction, the petitioner submitted multiple representations requesting transfer to a vacant post within Block Dharsiwa, District Raipur, but no action was taken by the respondents until the issuance of the posting order dated 10.02.2026. The petitioner now seeks the intervention of the Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to consider his request and grant him posting against the vacant posts in Block Dharsiwa, in accordance with the rationalization guidelines, as he continues to be categorized as a surplus teacher at his present school. 3. The petitioner/writ appellant submits that the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing his writ petition is illegal, as he was only seeking a direction to have his pending representation for posting to a vacant post within the same Block considered and decided within a stipulated period. While the discretion of posting lies with the employer, the petitioner is identified as a surplus teacher under the guidelines dated 02.08.2024, and a vacant post exists in the Block. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court ought to have directed the respondents to consider his representation promptly, ensuring compliance with the rationalization policy and safeguarding his legitimate interest in continued service without undue hardship. 4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous. The petitioner’s services were earlier attached to Government Primary School, Baratnara, Block 4 Dharsiwa; however, in accordance with the directives issued for cancellation of all attachment orders, the petitioner has been rightly directed to join his substantive place of posting at Government Primary School, Mana Basti, Block Dharsiwa. The District Education Officer has lawfully rejected the petitioner’s representation and directed him to report to his substantive posting within three days, which is in accordance with the extant rules and guidelines. 5. As per the appellant/petitioner in person he is surplus teacher and the order of attachment has not been considered property. But, considering the fact that Single Judge has discussed in the petition the fact that all the teachers who were attached were asked to join at their parent department. Further, in view of the submissions made by the parties, it transpires that the petitioner’s writ petition was rightly dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. While the petitioner sought a direction for consideration of his representation, the State has acted in accordance with the directives issued by the authority concerned, canceling all attachments and directing the petitioner to join his substantive place of posting at Government Primary School, Mana Basti, Block Dharsiwa. The rejection of the petitioner’s request by the District Education Officer is consistent with the extant rules and rationalization guidelines, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, 5 on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil