Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6906 of 2025 1 - Smt. Priti Gupta W/o Janmesh Gupta Aged About 33 Years Lecturer (Physics) At Swami Karpatri Ji Govt. Higher Secondary School Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Kabirdham District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Kabirdham District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 08/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.04 18:16:33 +0530 order of her posting dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Birkona under the Rationalization 2 Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her representation has been rejected by the respondent No.4 and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Scheme of the Government and posted at Swami Karpatri Ji Govt. Higher Secondary School Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the Govt. High School Birkona, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB) (Physics) was appointed vide order dated 31.08.2021 on the probation period of 03 years and was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kawardha. Though the proposal for confirmation of the petitioner was sent on 20.11.2024, but till date no order of her confirmation has been issued and she is still on probation. Vide order dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Birkona, Block Kawardha. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against the posting order dated 3 04.06.2025, the petitioner has filed WPS No. 4282 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee, who shall take a decision in accordance with law within the stipulated period, in objective manner. After passing of the order by this Court on 13.06.2025, the petitioner moved her representation and the order has been passed on 23.06.2025 by the respondent No.4 on the representation of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Lecturer (LB) (Physics) and has been appointed on 31.08.2021 and posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kawardha. Her appointment was on probation of 03 years and she joined in the school on 15.09.2021. Although, 03 years of her probation is over, but no formal order of her confirmation is issued. The order of confirmation with respect to other similarly situated Lecturers have been issued on 13.03.2025 and 06.05.2025, whereas the name of the petitioner is not there in the said list dated 13.03.2025 and 06.05.2025 and she is still under probation. On 04.06.2025, she has been declared surplus at Swami Karpatri Ji Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kawardha and has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Birkona, Block Kawardha under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Since the petitioner is on probation, she cannot be declared surplus as provided under clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. He would further submit that in Swami Karpatri Ji Govt. Higher Secondary School, there are 04 sanctioned posts of Lecturer 4 (Physics) and only 03 Lecturers (Physics) are working and one post of Lecturer (Physics) is lying vacant there, and thus, the petitioner is not surplus in the school. Earlier the petitioner has challenged the order
Decision
dated 04.06.2025 in WPS No. 4282 of 2025, which was disposed of on 13.06.2025 to make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and to appear there on 19.06.2025, who shall decide the representation in objective manner, thereafter the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 23.06.2025 holding that the probation period of the petitioner is over on 15.09.2024 and there is no order of extension of her probation period and recommendation for her confirmation has also been forwarded on 20.11.2024, therefore, her representation is rejected. He would also submit that there should be an specific order of confirmation of the employee and till the passing of the specific order, the employee should be treated on probation, as the same have been extended impliedly. He would rely upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 7213 of 2011. Thus, the impugned orders suffer from illegality and the same are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the proposal for confirmation of the petitioner has already been sent on 20.11.2024 to the higher authorities and there is no specific order with respect to extension of probation period of the petitioner. The petitioner had joined in the school on 15.09.2021 and after completion of 03 years on 5 15.09.2024, her probation period was over and now she cannot be treated on probation. The authorities have considered that the probation period of the petitioner is over and considering that the petitioner is junior, she has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Birkona. The order passed in WPS No. 7213 of 2011 is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and the benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner by the same. In the present case, the recommendation for confirmation has already been forwarded to the higher authorities. There is no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 7. The sole ground of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in the present writ petition is that, there is no specific order of her conformation after completion of her probation period, and therefore, she should be treated as probationer and as per clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, she cannot be posted to other place. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 31.08.2021 and she had joined on 15.09.2021. Her appointment was on probation for 03 years from the date of her joining. From perusal of the order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), it transpires that the recommendation for confirmation of the petitioner has already been forwarded to the higher authorities on 20.11.2024, and there is no specific order with respect to extension of the 6 probation period. Since, the respondent No.4 has already considered that the petitioner has completed her probation period and for issuance of formal order of confirmation, the proposal has already been sent on 20.11.2024, it cannot be said that the petitioner is still on probation till the formal order of confirmation is issued. In furtherance of confirm the petitioner on service, the authorities have taken action and recommendation has been made. The authorities have considered that the petitioner has completed her probation period and she being the junior Lecturer in the school in Physics subject, she has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 after considering the number of students, available sanctioned posts and requirement of Lecturers there. 8. In WPS No. 7213 of 2011, the petitioner of that writ petition had challenged her removal from service. She was initially appointed on the post of Peon on 27.09.2005 for the probation of 02 years and after period of 02 years, her probation period was extended for one more year w.e.f. 29.09.2007, which automatically came to be ended on 28.08.2008, however she continuously worked up to 01.08.2011 and therefore, she claimed that she cannot be removed from service without holding any inquiry or giving an opportunity of hearing. In that context, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that, if certain positive acts are not done as per the service rules, the principles of automatic confirmation cannot be applied. But in the present case, the positive act for confirmation of the petitioner is done by recommendation for her confirmation dated 20.11.2024, therefore, the 7 petitioner cannot be benefited by the order passed in WPS No. 7213 of 2011. 9. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 10. 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 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. 11. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and 8 circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned orders dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved