1 - Prawin Kumar Sahu S/o Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Posted v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7119 of 2025 1 - Prawin Kumar Sahu S/o Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Posted As - Lecturer, At Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Kasawahi, Block- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh H.Q. - Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Dist- Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector, District- Dhamtari C.G. 4 - The District Education Officer Cum Member Secretary, District Yuktiyutkaran Samiti, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari C.G. 5 - Kheman Lal Hirwani, Lecturer (History) At- Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Kasawahi, Block- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 18/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned orders dated 05.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.25 18:12:59 +0530 2 petitioner, who is a Lecturer, has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gopalpur, Block Dhamtari and his representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second round of litigation. Against the posting order dated 05.06.2025, the
Decision
petitioner had filed WPS No. 4506 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 his representation on 17.06.2025 and he was heard on his representation on 19.06.2025 and the order has been passed on 25.06.2025 by the respondent No.4 rejecting his representation on the ground that as per the service book and taking over the charge report and also as per the gradation list, the petitioner is junior in the school, and therefore, he has been declared surplus. He would submit that the petitioner had joined in the Govt. High School, Kasawahi on 10.10.2019, at 11:30 AM and since the school was closed at that time, he gave his joining at Gram Panchayat, Kasawahi. In an inquiry conducted by the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Soram, Block Dhamtari/Inquiry Officer, the date of joining of the petitioner has been considered as 10.10.2019, as per their inquiry report dated 16.06.2023 (Annexure P/5). The respondent No.5 had joined in the school on 11.10.2019, which reflected from the attendance register that he joined in the school on 11.10.2019, at 1:20 PM, and thus, the petitioner being the senior than the respondent No.5 3 cannot be declared surplus and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposed and would submit that, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner dated 05.06.2025 is strictly in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The Rationalization Instructions has been strictly complied with and the seniority of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 has been considered by the authorities as per the record available to them and also the service book of the petitioner and his taking over the charge report, the petitioner has been considered as junior to the respondent No.5. Since, two Lecturers in Political Science subject were posted at Govt. High School, Kasawahi and as per clause 7-C(1) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, if the subject period for every subject Lecturer is less than 04, the junior would be declared surplus, and therefore, there is no infirmity or arbitrariness in the orders impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that he had joined in the school on 10.10.2019 and the respondent No.5 had joined on 11.10.2019 and in the inquiry report dated 16.06.2023, his joining in the school was considered as 10.10.2019. From perusal of the inquiry report dated 16.06.2023, it transpires that the petitioner claimed for fixation of his seniority from 10.10.2019 instead of 4 15.10.2019 and on his representation dated 10.11.2022, the matter was inquired by the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Soram by the order of District Education Officer, Dhamtari. From the inquiry report, it transpires that the inquiry officer has observed that the petitioner gave his joining on 10.10.2019 at Gram Panchayat, Kasawahi. In the representation dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/8) in para 4, the petitioner has submitted that the District Education Officer, Dhamtari vide its order dated 11.07.2023 ordered for correction of his date of joining as 10.10.2019 in the school, however it was cancelled on 24.07.2023 by saying that it is under competence of the Director, Public Instructions and has not recommended for appropriate decision, and thus, it cannot be said that the date of joining of the petitioner in the school is considered as 10.10.2019. Whether or not, the petitioner had given his joining at Govt. High School, Kasawahi on 10.10.2019 or at Gram Panchayat, Kasawahi on the said date, are the matters to be considered by the authorities based on the documents available to them. From the order dated 25.06.2025, it reflects that after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the service book of the petitioner and taking over the charge report, considered the petitioner as junior in the school, in which, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. 6. 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 5 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. 7. 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 orders dated 05.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge