1 / 3 2026:CGHC:7218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1520 of 2026 • Kaushal Prasad Teli S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Teli Aged About 36 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Posted At Government Primary School Tatakasa, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. The Joint Director, Education Division Durg/ President Of Divisional Rationalization Committee Durg , G.E. Road, District Durg C.G. 4. The Collector Kabirdham/president District Rationalization Committee, District Kabirdham C.G. 5. The District Education Officer/ Secretary District Rationalization Committee, District Kabirdham C.G. 6. The Block Education Officer, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham C.G. 7. Ajay Kumar Dhritlahre Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Presently Posted At Government Primary School Tatakasa, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G., Original Place Of Posting At Government Primary School Navagaon (Khagesh), Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ /order/ direction to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ /order/ direction to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal representation of the petitioner has been rejected and affirmed the order dated 03.11.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 in which the respondent No. 3 has affirmed the order dated 18.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 i.e. Secretary of District Rationalization Committee (Annexure P-2 collectively). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ /order/ direction to respondent authority to permit the petitioner to discharge his duty at Government Primary School Tatakasa Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 10.4 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been erroneously declared surplus teacher overlooking the fact that Respondent No. 7 was posted in Primary School, Tatakasa, Block Pandariya vide order dated 09.09.2025 by way of deputation. He submits that petitioner was a regular teacher of the School Education Department, though posted vide order dated 05.11.2019 in the school at Tatakasa, however, in the facts of the cse petitioner cannot be said to be teacher in surplus. He also pointed out that based on the objection raised by the petitioner along with other teachers of other schools, claim of petitioner was considered by the committee at block level and held that two teachers are only posted and therefore petitioner is not in surplus but subsequently considering the fact that three teachers were posted at primary school at Tatakasa petitioner has again been declared teacher in surplus. Lastly, he submits that if at all any teacher is treated to be in surplus, it would be Respondent No. 7 and not petitioner. 3 / 3 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the posting order which the petitioner is relying is of the year 2015 ie., prior to the absorption of teachers and other employees working in the school of School Education Department ie., year 2018 and therefore status of employees is to be considered on the date of transfer. Respondent No. 7 might have been absorbed in the School Education Department and the status of petitioner and Respondent No. 7 are to be same as employees of the School Education Department, but for the nomenclature as Assistant Teacher (E-cadre) and Assistant Teacher (LB cadre). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered the documents enclosed along with it. 5. When question is posed upon learned counsel for petitioner with regard to present status of Respondent No. 7, he would submit that according to the circular/ policy formulated by the State Government, teachers employed by the panchayat department have been absorbed by the School Education Department. He also does not dispute that three teachers were posted in school at Tatakasa on the date of issuance of transfer order. He fairly admitted that petitioner has been posted at Primary School, Tatakasa on 02.11.2015 whereas Respondent No. 7 on 11.09.2015. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, decision of respondents treating the petitioner to be in surplus cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. 7. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of transfer of petitioner under the rationalization policy vide order dated 04.06.2025. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be is hereby dismissed accordingly. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE