Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7468 of 2025 1 - Sitaram Khunte S/o Shri Matram Khunte Aged About 45 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) In Government Middle School, Purena, Block- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) R/o Sulaoni, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director School Education Department, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Principal/ Head Master Government Middle School, Purena, Block- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Principal/ Head Master Government Middle School, Sokhamuda, Block- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.25 18:13:40 +0530 2 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.5 and also challenged the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Sokhamuda, Block Dharamjaigarh under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024
Decision
and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and arising out of order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) and may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction for posting of the petitioner in same block i.e. Kharsiya, wherein post is lying vacant. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second round of litigation. Against the posting order dated 03.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4366 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.06.2025 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 11.06.2025, the petitioner moved his representation on 13.06.2025 and the order has been passed on 20.06.2025 by the respondent No.5 on the representation of the petitioner rejecting the same on the ground 3 that as per the subject rotation and strength of students in the school and also looking to the seniority, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted. He would further submit that there is violation of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. There are other schools available at nearby places having vacant post of Teacher (Arts). Another Teacher (Arts), who is retired on 30.06.2025 from Govt. Middle School, Dhimani, Block Kharsia, who is also the Teacher (Arts) and the petitioner may be posted there. The petitioner is having responsibilities of his old aged parents and minor children, therefore, the impugned order of his posting at Govt. Middle School, Sokhamuda is arbitrary and is 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 03.06.2025 is strictly in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The Rationalization Instructions has been strictly complied with and the subject rotation and strength of students in the school have been taken into consideration and then the petitioner has been declared surplus. While deciding the representation of the petitioner on 20.06.2025, he raised the objection that entire schools of the block have not been displayed at the time of counseling, however considering the entire process of rationalization, the subject rotation, strength of students and teachers in the school, the petitioner was declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions. So far as the family problem of the petitioner is concerned, it is for the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In the present writ petition, there is no 4 ground to quash the order of his posting 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 order of his posting and rejection of representation on the ground that despite having vacant post at the same block, the petitioner has been posted at other block and all the schools have not been displayed at the time of counseling. He also raised a ground that he is having old aged parents and minor children and by his posting to other place, they would be in difficulty to manage the family affairs. It is also the ground that one teacher/headmaster has been retired on 30.06.2025 from Middle School, Dhimani and the post is lying vacant there, yet his representation is rejected. From perusal of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/5), which has been made after order dated 11.06.2025, passed in WPS No. 4366 of 2025, except the ground of his family difficulty and availability of vacant post at nearby schools, no other ground has been raised in the representation. While deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2025, the reason for rejection has been assigned that the consideration of surplus teachers was on the basis of subject rotation and teacherless/single teacher school and called the teachers as per their seniority and after declaring them surplus, posting orders have been issued. The name of the petitioner is fine place at serial No. 41 of the order dated 20.06.2025. Availability of vacant post at nearby schools and the family difficulty are within the competence of the 5 authorities concerned, who shall take a decision on the basis of strength of students and teachers in the school and their requirement in the administrative exigency and under the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the order of his posting or violation of any condition of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and also in the order dated 20.06.2025 rejecting his representation. 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 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. 6 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 order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge