1 2026:CGHC:25961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4499 of 2026 Haridas Manikpuri S/o Mohandas Manikpuri Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Teacher Government Middle School Bela Block- Division- Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor C- Block- Indiravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 5 - Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 6 - District Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 8 - Divya Sahu Teacher Middle School Bela Block- Division Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Avinash Singh. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.06.25 17:55:51 +0530 2 24.06.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of his impugned order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) whereby the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and Smt. Sarojbala Jaiswal are identically situated employees. In the case of the said employee, the District Education Officer, by order dated 15.04.2026, has accepted the claim and treated her as a Hindi Teacher. However, despite the petitioner's case being on the same footing, the respondent authorities have adopted a different yardstick and denied the same benefit to the petitioner. It is further submitted that pursuant to the communication dated 16.03.2026, the Joint Director himself called for a report from the District Education Officer, Korba. In compliance thereof, the Block Education Officer, Korba submitted a detailed report dated 24.03.2026, which was thereafter forwarded by the District Education Officer, Korba to the Joint Director on 15.04.2026, recommending the petitioner's claim. The impugned order, however, does not advert to or consider these reports at all, rendering it a non- speaking and arbitrary order. Learned counsel further submits that the Government Notification dated 05.03.2019 clearly contemplates that teachers possessing Graduation with Hindi are liable to be treated as Hindi Teachers. The petitioner fulfills the prescribed educational qualifications and, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of the said notification. The rejection of his claim is thus contrary to the 3 Government policy itself. It is contended that while another teacher, namely Smt. Shushma Tiwari, possessing the same graduation qualification has been treated as a Hindi Teacher, the petitioner's identical claim has been rejected without assigning any rational basis. Such hostile discrimination is impermissible in law and is liable to be struck down. It is also submitted that the petitioner is unable to join at the transferred place owing to his ill health. Instead of objectively considering the petitioner's grievance in light of the reports submitted by the subordinate authorities and the applicable Government notification, the respondent No.3 has rejected the representation in a cursory manner without recording cogent reasons. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, arbitrariness, discrimination, and failure to consider relevant materials, and is consequently unsustainable in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No.674 of 2025 (Shashi Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the main grievance of the appellant is that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), but she has been considered as Lecturer (Science) and has been declared surplus. It is grievance of the appellant that she was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling on the ground that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry) and there are no surplus Lecturers in 4 the Chemistry subject, and the Respondent No. 5 has been allotted to Ambikapur School. From perusal of the order dated 11.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the appellant and one Snehlata Pathak, were the Lecturers (Chemistry) and they have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. The District Level list of Lecturers shows only two categories, i.e. (1) Biology and (2) Science. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the appellant is considered as the Lecturer (Science), which includes the Chemistry subject as subject of Science. There was no vacant post available for Lecturer (Chemistry/ Science) and therefore, the name of appellant is placed in the State Level counselling and she has been allotted the Bhopalpatnam school. Even otherwise. Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the 5 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 4. Learned State counsel further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 674 of 2025, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WA No. 674 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ appeal. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No. 674 of 2025. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Ashu