NAFR 1 - Vivek Kumar Sinha S/o Late B.K. Sinha Aged About 38 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5378 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Vivek Kumar Sinha S/o Late B.K. Sinha Aged About 38 Years Posted As Teacher (Maths), Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 5 - Alok Raj David Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 6 - Kaushal Kishore Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 7 - Aakash Sharma Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 8 - Jitendra Yadav Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.01 12:09:28 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 27/06/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order of his posting dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher, has been posted from Middle School, Barkela, Block Manendragarh to Middle School, Maniyari, Block Bharatpur under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and
Decision
prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the posting order dated 03/06/2025 issued by Secretary and District Education Officer, District Rationalization Committee, District Bilaspur, C.G. is (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09/06/2025 issued by the Block Education Officer, Block Manendragarh, District MCB, C.G. (ANNEXURE P/2) 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the clause 10(6) of the rationalization guidelines dated 02/08/2024. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Teacher and presently posted at Middle School, Barkela. He has been declared surplus and has been transferred to Middle School, Maniyari. The petitioner is the senior than other teachers in the school as per the 3 respective date of their joining in the school, but in violation of clause 7-B(4) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, he has been declared surplus. He would also submit that the respondent No.6 has been left on the ground that he is a probationer and the petitioner has been declared surplus, therefore, there is violation of Rationalization Instructions and the impugned order of posting of the petitioner under the Rationalization is arbitrary, and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that in the Middle School, Barkela there are 113 students and as per Rationalization Instructions, 05 teachers were including the headmaster. There were 06 teachers working, out of which one headmaster, 02 senior teachers and 03 teachers on probation. The junior most teacher Kaushal Kishore Thakur is on probation and he is the teacher (maths), and therefore, as per the subject rotation provided under clause 7-B(5) of the Rationalization Instructions, though the petitioner is senior, he declared surplus. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner has claimed that he is posted as teacher and senior in the school than the other teachers and he may not be declared surplus. The petitioner has joined in the school on 02.04.2013, 4 whereas the other teacher Alok Raj David has joined on 12.06.2023. Clause 7-B(5) provided the rotation of subjects, under which the teachers are to be considered for their regularization, which reads as under:- “सात- अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों के ति(cid:14)न्हांकन हेतु ्ቚቅኌ(cid:22)याः- ቅኌ(cid:25)कासखण्ड स्तरीय सቅኌनኋा! सቅኌኋतित युቅኌ"यु"करण (cid:25)ाले ቅኌ(cid:25)्ቕालयों के अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों तथा अन्य ቅኌ(cid:25)्ቕालयों के अतितशेष शिश्ቌकों के ति(cid:14)न्हांकन हेतु ቅኌनम्नानुसार ्ቚቅኌ(cid:22)या अपनायेगी:- B. पू(cid:25)! ኋाध्यቅኌनक शाला:- 05. ቅኌ(cid:25)षय की गणना करते सኋय ቅኌ(cid:25)षय शिश्ቌकों (्ቚधान पाठक सቅኌहत) का (cid:14)(cid:22)ानु(cid:22)ኋ ቅኌनम्नानुसार होगाः- (I) अं्ቇेजी (II) गशिणत (III) कला (IV) ቅኌ(cid:25)्ሺान (V) ቅኌहन्दी (VI) संस्कृ त/उदू !/(cid:25)ाशिणज्य” 6. The other teacher Kaushal Kishore Thakur is appointed in the school on 31.08.2023 on probation of 03 years and presently he is on proration, and therefore, as per clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, he cannot be declared surplus. Since, the teacher, who is on probation cannot be declared surplus, as per the rotation provided under clause 7-B(5) of Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 7. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement 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 5 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 public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 8. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge