1 - Smt. Aditi Bizoura W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Bizoura Aged About 47 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralay Mahanadi
Case Details
1 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 12:39:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:33125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7074 of 2025 1 - Smt. Aditi Bizoura W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Bizoura Aged About 47 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) At- Govt Middle School Loharsi Block - Patan Distt- Durg (C.G) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur- Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instruction Chhattisgarh H.Q. Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Cum Member Secretary District Yuktiytkaran Samiti Durg District - Durg (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Laxmi Thakur W/o Shri Nameshwar Kumar Thakur Aged About 40 Years Post As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt Moddle School Loharsi Block- Patan Distt. Durg (C.G.) 7 - Shri Mishri Lal Sonwani S/o Late Ram Prasan Sonwani Aged About 56 Years Posted As Teacher (L.B) At Govt Middle School Loharsi Block - Patan Distt- Durg (C.G.) 8 - Shri Arun Kumar Sahu S/o Late Narayan Prasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years Posted As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt Middle School Loharsi Block Patan Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15/07/2025 2 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 07-06- 2025 and 24-06-2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Loharsi, District Durg, to Govt. Middle School, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, under the Rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 and her representation is rejected. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction / directions /order / orders to the respondents to quash the impugned orders, dt. 07.06.2025 and the impugned order, dt. 24.06.2025 [Annexure - P/1 colly). b. This Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. C. May kindly be pleased to allow the cost of petition” 2. Present is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P.S. No. 4450/2025 before this Court, challenging his posting order dated 07-06-
Decision
2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13-06-2025, with a direction to make a fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee, which shall decide the same within the stipulated period. The petitioner made his representation, and the committee provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 20-06-2025 and then decided the representation on 24-06-2025, rejecting the same. These two orders, dated 07-06-2025 and 24-06-2025, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (E-Cadre) and was posted at Govt. Middle School, Loharsi. She has been declared surplus under the rationalization of teachers and has been 3 posted at Govt. Middle School, Chhuriya. He would further submit that she was posted at Govt. Middle School, Loharsi as a Teacher (English) for the last 14 years and her subject in postgraduation was also English. After her posting, there is no teacher for the English subject. She is teaching English in the school, but she has been considered as a Teacher (Science) for rationalization. He would further submit that, as per the subject rotation, she is entitled to first priority as she is the teacher of English. The subject-wise posts have been deleted by the notification dated 11-07-2023, and therefore, the seniority from the gradation list should be considered in the rationalization process and not from the seniority from the date of their joining in the school irrespective of the subject. Her husband is also a Teacher (LB) and has been posted at Block-Patan, District Durg, and there is a vacant post available at Patan Block. Therefore, there is a complete violation of the rationalization instructions, and the posting order of the petitioner is arbitrary. The representation of the petitioner is also decided mechanically. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, and the petitioner may be permitted to remain at her earlier place of posting. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Loharsi. The petitioner is a Teacher (Science), as reflected from her promotion order dated 30-07-2010 (Annexure P-2). The total strength of the students in the Loharsi school was 57, and 4 teachers were required as per the rationalization instructions; however, there were 5 teachers working. There were 3 teachers for the Science subject in the school, including the headmaster. Thus, as per the subject rotation as per Clause 7(B)(5) of the rationalization instructions, the junior-most teacher, i.e. the petitioner, is declared as surplus. He would also submit that, as per Clause 7(B)(4) of the rationalization instruction, if more than one teacher is in the same subject, seniority would be considered from the date of their joining the school. 5. 6. 4 Therefore, the petitioner, being the junior-most in the school, has been declared surplus and posted at Chhuriya School. All the provisions of Rationalization Instructions have been strictly followed, and considering the entire circumstances under the Rationalization Instructions, the petitioner has been declared surplus. The representation of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the authorities. There is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge her posting order under the Rationalization, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (E-Cadre), has been posted to the Government Middle School, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, vide order dated 07-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions. From the order dated 24-06-2025, it transpires that the strength of Loharsi school was 57, and only 4 teachers were required. Clause 7(B)(4) of the rationalization instructions provides that "'kkyk esa inLFk @ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnukad ds vk/kkj ij ,d gh fo"k; ds nks f'k{kd es a ls कनि(cid:3)्तम dks vfr'ks"k ekuk tk;sxkA". The headmaster is also a teacher (Science) and out of the 03 teachers (Science) posted in the school, the petitioner, being the junior, declared surplus. In the order dated 24-06-2025, it is observed that:- सं(cid:2)बं(cid:2)धि(cid:5)त के(cid:8) यु(cid:10)ሹኌ(cid:12)तयु(cid:10)(cid:12)तकेरण के(cid:8) पू(cid:16)्ብ(cid:18) के(cid:19)यु(cid:18)रत वि्ብቕኋ(cid:19)लयु 'kk- iw- ek- fo- " ल(cid:23)हरसं(cid:25) (केवि(cid:26)्), वि्ብ. ख. पू(cid:19)ट(cid:26), जि(cid:31)ल(cid:19) दु्ቇ(cid:18) दु्ቇ(cid:18) ेሰ# द(cid:31)(cid:18) सं(cid:2)ख्यु(cid:19) 57 के(cid:8) ेሰ(cid:19)(cid:26) सं(cid:8) के(cid:10) ल 4 f’k{kdksa के& आ्ብष्युकेत(cid:19) थी(cid:25). सं(cid:2)ቝኋ(cid:19) ेሰ# के(cid:10) ल 5 f’k{kd के(cid:19)यु(cid:18)रत थी(cid:8)। अत- 01 f’k{kd के(cid:23) vfr'ks"k के& ्ቇण(cid:26)(cid:19) ेሰ# 'kkfey विकेयु(cid:19) ्ቇयु(cid:19) ह.। fo"k; ह(cid:8)त(cid:10) वि(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:18)रिरत चके(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:10)केेሰ अ(cid:26)(cid:10)सं(cid:19)र के& ्ቇई ्ቇण(cid:26)(cid:19) ेሰ# ्ቚ.पू(cid:19). के(cid:19) fo"k; वि्ብሺኋ(cid:19)(cid:26) ए्ብ(cid:2) अन्यु f’k{kd के(cid:19) fo"k; dze’k% ्ቇणिणत, वि्ብሺኋ(cid:19)(cid:26) ए्ብ(cid:2) विहन्द7 के(cid:23) ्ቇण(cid:26)(cid:19) ेሰ# धिलयु(cid:19) ्ቇयु(cid:19) ह.। वि्ብሺኋ(cid:19)(cid:26) के(cid:8) 03 f’k{kd पूदቝኋ ह(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:8) के(cid:8) के(cid:19)रण सं(cid:2)बं(cid:2)धि(cid:5)त वि्ብशयु के(cid:8) 01 केवि(cid:26)् f’k{kd के(cid:23) vfr'ks"k के& सं(cid:16)च(cid:25) ेሰ# वि्ብके(cid:19)संखण्ड स्तर(cid:25)यु संमिेሰवित ቛኋ(cid:19)र(cid:19) संቜኌ?ेሰधिलत विकेयु(cid:19) ्ቇयु(cid:19)। जि(cid:31)संेሰ# यु(cid:19)धिचके(cid:19)केत(cid:19)(cid:18) के(cid:19) (cid:26)(cid:19)ेሰ संቜኌ?ेሰधिलत ह.।" 7. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the consideration of the committee is against the rationalization instructions or arbitrary. She was promoted on 5 30-07-2010 as Teacher (Science) and now she has been considered as Teacher (Science) and declared surplus. She has been considered surplus as per her date of joining the school and has been posted at Chhuriya school. The headmaster cannot be declared surplus, and the petitioner is junior to other teachers in Science in the school, as she had joined on 02-08- 2010, and another Teacher (Science) had joined on 21-10-2008 (Annexure P-5). This court does not find any palpable infirmity or arbitrariness in the posting of the petitioner by declaring her surplus or rejecting her representation. 8. 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 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. 9. 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. Alok Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge