1 / 3 2026:CGHC:4346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 835 of 2026 • Smt. Sharda Dubey W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey Aged About 44 Years Working As - Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Primary School Bariyo, Block Rajpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Deputy Director Public Instruction Directorate And Chairman Directorate Level Committee First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. The Block Education Officer Block Rajpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6. The Secretary Rationalization Committee Cum District Education Officer, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 27/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, order/orders, direction/directions the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1), quashing PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 issued by the respondent No.2. and further be pleased to allow the representation dated 09.12.2025 filed before Respondent authority. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2), issued by the respondent authority. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 (ΑΝNEXURE P/5), issued by the respondent authority. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from 01-11-2025 to till date with interest. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is holding post of Assistant Teacher and while posted at Government Primary School, Bariyo, Block Rajpur, District – Balrampur is transferred to Government Primary School Banour Camp, Block & District – Balrampur under rationalization scheme showing petitioner to be in surplus in earlier school. He contended that according to rationalization policy, posting is to be made of surplus teachers based on counselling in which name of school is to be shown to the teachers and their option is to be asked for their posting. Initially respondents authorities have issued letter fixing the date of counselling on 04.06.2025, however on 02.06.2025, a letter was published that counselling dated 04.06.2025 is cancelled and again letter was issued on 03.06.2025 mentioning that counselling will be done on earlier date fixed i.e. on 04.06.2025 as per schedule fixed due to which, petitioner could not able to submit her objection in appropriate manner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that according to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to publication of notice dated 02.06.2025 of cancelling the proceedings of counselling already fixed on 04.06.2025 and 3 / 3 again issued letter stating counselling will be done on 04.06.2025. It was intimated to all the teachers. There is no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Petitioner got the knowledge about counselling fixed on 04.06.2025 prior to the date i.e. 03.06.2025. It is not the case that petitioner has not participated in the counselling process, therefore, no prejudice is caused to him. . 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the divisional level committee and State level committee considering the grounds raised by petitioner has rejected the representation/ appeal of petitioner. The employer would be the appropriate authority to appreciate the grounds raised in that case and I do not find any arbitrariness in initiation of proceeding of counselling. In the case at hand also, though initially respondents-authorities have taken decision not to hold counselling proceeding on 04.06.2025, on 02.06.2025, a letter was published that counselling dated 04.06.2025 is cancelled. However, another letter was issued on 03.06.2025 informing the teachers that counselling will be done on earlier date fixed i.e. on 04.06.2025 as per schedule fixed. Petitioner get knowledge of counselling prior to the date fixed 04.06.2025, she participated in the counselling proceedings, as such no prejudice is caused to petitioner. Petitioner could not able to make out a case that her transfer is in violation of statutory rules, or of malafide. The policy framed for transfer is not to be read as statute. 6. For the foregoing discussions I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order of posting. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE