1 / 5 2026:CGHC:4532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 337 of 2026 Vikas Sharma S/o Shri B.N. Sharma Aged About 39 Years Teacher (Science), Presently Working At Govt. Middle School, Pisaud, Block Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division Cum Chairman Division Level Yuktiyuktkaran Representation Resolution Committee Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector Janjgir Champa Cum Chairmen District Level Yuktiyuktkaran Committee, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Cum Member Secretary Division Level Yuktiyuktkaran Representation Resolution Committee Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Education Officer Janjgir Champa Cum Secretary District Level Yuktiyuktkaran Committee, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.27 18:15:01 +0530 2 / 5 7 - Block Education Officer Baloda, Cum Secretary Block Level Yuktiyuktkaran Committee Block Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while posted as Teacher (Science) in Govt. Middle School, Pisaud, Block Baloda District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh is transferred to Govt. Middle School, Kodwabani Block Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh under the Rationalization Policy formulated by the State Government. He submits that posting of teachers in surplus under rationalization scheme is governed by the policy formulated by State Government in regard, on 02.08.2024 and, according to procedure prescribed for identifying the teacher in surplus in particular schools i.e. middle school under Class- II (for purpose of this case), it is mentioned that where ever the number of students admitted and is studying in class is 105 or less there shall be one head master and three teachers and teacher more than four shall be treated as surplus. He also submits that teachers are to be posted on rational basis which is provided under Clause 5 of that relevant portion of policy and according to rational basis it is mentioned that teachers are to be of English, Math, Arts, Science, Hindi and Sanskrit/Urdu/Commerce. The existing head 3 / 5 master is a teacher of Arts and therefore, other teachers will be of English, Math and Science. The petitioner was erroneously treated as surplus staff in the facts of the case and the policy of the State Govt. Aggrieved with the posting of petitioner he submitted representation before the Divisional Level Committed headed by the Joint Director who initially rejected the claim of petitioner vide Annexure P-2 dated 19.09.2025 and 30.09.2025. Order of the Joint Director was put to challenge before State Level Committee headed by DPI. The appeal submitted by petitioner was not considered on merits and again it was sent to Joint Director which is arbitrary exercise of power. Petitioner till date is working at the earlier place of posting i.e. Sub Division Office, Janjgir-Champa and he is not been relieved. 3. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that in the facts of case and submission made by learned counsel for petitioner it is appearing that the appeal/representation submitted by petitioner before the State Level Committee headed by DPI is sent to Divisional Level Committee for consideration and vide letter dated 15.01.2026. It will be considered in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. By Annexure P-1 it is clear that the petitioner was transferred. Perusal of Annexure P-2 i.e. order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Joint Director and the Member Secretary of the Divisional Level Committee would show that representation/appeal submitted by petitioner was rejected observing that there is no error in declaring the petitioner to be surplus. 4 / 5 Order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Divisional Level Committee would further show that the Divisional Level Committee has observed that if petitioner is not satisfied by the order of Divisional Level Committee then he can file an appeal before the State Level Committee headed by DPI. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that thereafter, petitioner has submitted an appeal before the State Level Committee Annexure P-17 on 03.10.2025 mentioning the entire facts and grounds therein. 6. The documents which are placed by learned counsel for petitioner for perusal of this Court i.e. letter dated 15.01.2026 of the office of Deputy Director Public Instructions Directorate Chhattisgarh would show that along with representation/appeal submitted by petitioner representation of 62 teachers has been sent to officer of Joint Director for consideration without assigning any reason. 7. According to the policy formulated by the State Govt. there is a remedy of appeal before the State Level Committee against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee. If order of Divisional Level Committee is put to challenge before State Level Committee it is for the State Level Committee to take decision on the appeal preferred by an employee/teacher in accordance with law. If for any reason the State Level Committee comes to the conclusion that the ground raised in appeal requires reconsideration at the end of Divisional Level Committee then specific reason is to be assigned in this regard which is missing. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and further considering that the petitioner has submitted an appeal after rejection of claim of petitioner/ 5 / 5 application submitted under the Rationalization Police before Divisional Level Committee. It is for the State Level Committee to consider and take decision on merits of claim of petitioner which is not been done. 9. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no. 2 to take decision on the appeal submitted by petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. However, in the facts of the case, petitioner will be at liberty to submit copy of the appeal preferred before the State Level Committee with the order of the Court to be placed before Respondent no. 2. 10. As submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is still working at earlier place of posting based on the directives issued from time to time, it is directed that status–quo as it exists today with respect to place of posting of petitioner shall be maintained by the parties till the final disposal of the appeal submitted by petitioner before respondent no. 2. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza