1 / 6 CGHC010155682026 2026:CGHC:29655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3424 of 2026 Naval Kumar Joshi S/o Somdatt Joshi Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Teacher Middle School, Government Middle School Dongri, Block Division Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C- Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Luv Sharma, PL ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.16 14:34:32 +0530 2 / 6 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned orders dated 24.03.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) 25.09.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2), 01.07.2025 (ANNEXURE P/3), and 03/06/2025 (ANNEXURE P/4) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner and rejection of representations of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to keep the petitioner posted at Government Middle School Dongri Block Katghora District Korba (C.G.) in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the rationalization policy and the circulars issued by the School Education Department. He would next submit that while declaring the petitioner surplus and transferring 3 / 6 him from Government Middle School, Dongri, Block Katghora to Government Middle School, Jaigi, Block Podi Uproda, the respondent authorities neither followed the prescribed procedure nor afforded the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. He would next submit that the petitioner is a Post Graduate Teacher (English) and has been serving at Government Middle School, Dongri since the year 2018. The petitioner is the only teacher available for teaching the English subject in the said school and there is no other English teacher posted there. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared surplus in terms of the rationalization policy, as his services are indispensable for the institution. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities failed to disclose the complete school-wise vacancy position at the time of counselling. The petitioner was, therefore, deprived of making an informed choice regarding his posting. The entire exercise of rationalization has thus been conducted in a non-transparent manner, rendering the impugned action arbitrary and violative of the principles of fairness. 3. He would next submit that the respondents, while determining surplus teachers, failed to correctly verify the staff position, subject-wise requirement and the service records of the petitioner. The authorities erroneously treated the petitioner, who is an English teacher, as a surplus teacher by taking into consideration the position of Hindi teachers, without examining the actual requirement of English teachers in the school. Consequently, the petitioner has been wrongly declared surplus and transferred. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had 4 / 6 earlier challenged the transfer order before this Court, whereupon he was granted liberty to submit a representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee. However, despite the specific directions of this Court, the representation was rejected by the District Level Committee and thereafter by the Divisional Level Committee and the State Level Committee in a mechanical manner, without considering the specific objections raised by the petitioner and without assigning cogent reasons. It is further submitted that the impugned orders suffer from complete non-application of mind, as the authorities failed to consider the actual requirement of an English teacher in the petitioner's parent school, ignored the relevant records and acted in violation of the Government Circular dated 28.04.2025 governing the process of rationalization. The rejection of the petitioner's representation is thus arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned orders declaring the petitioner surplus, transferring him to another school and rejecting his representations be quashed, and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to continue at his original place of posting with all consequential benefits. 4. 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:- 5 / 6 “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 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 6 / 6 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 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).” 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No. 674 of 2025. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu