Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6249 of 2025 1 - Smt. Triveni Mahant W/o Chandramani Mahant Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher (Lb) Government Primary School Kudrikhar Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - 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 - District Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub - Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Block Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4106 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Triveni Mahant W/o Chandramani Mahant Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Assistant Teacher (L B), Kudrikhar, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 31.05.2025, having the same issue with respect to the posting of the petitioner under the rationalization instructions, and therefore, both these petitions are being heard and decided together. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition (WPS No. 6249/2025) challenging the order dated 31.05.2025 and 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) by which the petitioner has been posted to Primary school, Baghindand and her representation has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 31/05/2025 and 18.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1 and P/2) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner 179 kms away from the present, place of posting i.e. from Government Primary 3 School Kudrikhar Block Division Korba to Primary School Badhindand Block Division Podi Uprora. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at the nearest Vacant Single Teacher Primary School in accordance with law i.e. at Primary School Belakachar. 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.” 3. This is the second round of litigation. The order dated 31.05.2025 was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 4106/2025, in which an interim order was passed on 11.06.2025 directing the petitioner to appear before the District Level Rationalization Committee on 16.06.2025 to raise her grievances, and then the Committee shall decide her representation within the stipulated time frame and the case was fixed for 23.06.2025. The petitioner appeared before the District Level Rationalization Committee on the said date and raised her grievances. Thereafter, considering the record of the case of the petitioner, her representation has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of counselling, a total of 287 schools were displayed, and 73 schools had not been displayed. There is a complete violation of rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024. Clause 1-D (3) and (6) of the rationalization instructions have not been complied with. Within the Korba block, there are 50 single teacher schools, of which only 34 single teacher schools have been displayed, and 16 schools were suppressed. The primary schools, i.e. Belakachhar, Risda, Dargha, Bhadrapara and Kudripara schools have not been displayed despite vacancies available there. The petitioner was transferred to Primary School, Kudripara in the year 2019, and presently she has been declared surplus, which is far away from her present place of 4 posting. She is undergoing the IVF treatment and, therefore, the impugned orders may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State on instruction would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that, as per the strength of students in the schools and the required teachers at Kudrikhar schools under the rationalization instructions, the petitioner was declared surplus and has been posted to Primary School, Baghindand. Clause 10 (4) of the Rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 provides that an equal number of teachers and teacher-less/single teacher schools would be displayed first. All the teacher- less /single teacher schools are required to be displayed only when the number of surplus teachers is in excess then the number of teacher-less/single teacher schools. Therefore, the equal number of teacher- less/single teacher schools to the surplus teachers has been displayed. After hearing the petitioner on 16.06.2025, her representation was rejected on 18.06.2025, and there is no violation of any conditions of rationalization
Decision
instructions and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher (LB), was posted at Primary School, Kudrikhar and has been posted at Primary School, Baghindand under the rationalization of the teachers vide order dated 31.05.2025. In the earlier writ petition No. 4106/2025 filed by the petitioner, there was an interim order dated 11.06.2025 passed by this Court directing her to appear on 16.06.2025 before the District Level Rationalization Committee and shall raise her grievances and in compliance thereof, she appeared on 16.06.2025 and after hearing her the District Level Rationalization Committee has decided her representation on 18.06.2025 rejecting her representation. The petitioner had raised the ground that there is a violation 6. 7. 5 of Clause 10(4) of the Rationalization instructions, and all the teacher-less/single teacher schools have not been displayed. Clause 10(4) of the Rationalization instructions reads as under: “10(4)- का(cid:2)उं(cid:4)सिሴ(cid:7)(cid:8)ग हे(cid:11)तु(cid:13) जि(cid:15)तुने(cid:11) शि(cid:18)्ቌका अतितु(cid:18)(cid:11)ष हे(cid:23) उंतुने(cid:24) हे(cid:24) स(cid:4)ख्या(cid:2) ेሰ(cid:28) शि(cid:18)्ቌका ति(cid:29)हे(cid:24)ने, एका(cid:7) शि(cid:18)्ቌका(cid:31)या ए(cid:29)(cid:4) अधि!का द(cid:15)# स(cid:4)ख्या(cid:2) (cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11) ति(cid:29)ቕኋ(cid:2)(cid:7)या% का& दቦኌ(cid:18)(cid:8)तु तिकाया(cid:2) (cid:15)(cid:2)या(cid:11)। तिकान्तु(cid:13) याहे(cid:2)(cid:4) याहे ध्या(cid:2)ने ेሰ(cid:28) रखा(cid:2) (cid:15)(cid:2)या(cid:11)ग(cid:2) तिका, सभी(cid:24) शि(cid:18)्ቌका ति(cid:29)ष्हे(cid:24)ने ति(cid:29)ቕኋ(cid:2)(cid:7)या% ए(cid:29)(cid:4) इसका(cid:11) पቐኋ(cid:2)तु2 सभी(cid:24) एका(cid:7) शि(cid:18)्ቌका(cid:31)या ति(cid:29)ቕኋ(cid:2)(cid:7)या% का& अतिने(cid:29)(cid:2)या# रूप स(cid:11) दቦኌ(cid:18)(cid:8)तु तिकाया(cid:2) (cid:15)(cid:2)या(cid:11)। तुद2ने(cid:13)पर(cid:2)(cid:4)तु ” आ(cid:29)श्याकातु(cid:2)ने(cid:13)स(cid:2)र अधि!का द(cid:15)# स(cid:4)ख्या(cid:2) (cid:29)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11) ति(cid:29)ቕኋ(cid:2)(cid:7)या% का& दቦኌ(cid:18)(cid:8)तु तिकाया(cid:2) (cid:15)(cid:2)या(cid:11)। 8. From perusal of Clause 10 (4) of the Rationalization instructions, it reveals that the teacher-less/single teacher schools to the equal number of surplus teacher should be displayed first which is also the consideration of the District Level Rationalization Committee. After giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her grievances have been considered by the District Level Rationalization Committee. It is for the authorities concerned to prepare the list of the schools and teachers after considering the physical status of the schools, the strength of the students and the set-up of the school. From the instructions submitted by the state, it also transpires that at the time of counselling, she was absent and therefore, the teachers, who have not given their consent, have been posted in the remaining schools and in its sequence, the petitioner is posted at Govt. Primary School, Baghindand. This court does not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the order passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee dated 18.06.2025. 9. So far as the medical ground raised by the petitioner, it is for the authorities concerned to consider the difficulties of the petitioner. However, I do not find any provisions in the rationalizạtion instructions to consider the posting of the teachers on that ground to any convenient place. 10. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 6 posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the 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. 11. The WPS No. 4106/2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of her posting dated 31.05.2025, and after passing an interim order, he availed the remedy of filing her representation in compliance with the order dated 11.06.2025, and her representation has been rejected by the District Level Rationalization Committee, which was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 6249/2025. The said WPS No. 6249/2025 has been dismissed. Therefore, in view of the order passed in WPS No. 6249/2025, the present WPS No. 4106/2025 is also dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Alok (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge