Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7306 of 2025 1 - Saroj Singh W/o Sheshmani Pratap Singh Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer L.B. (English), Government Higher Secondary School, Acholi, Block Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Block Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Nagdha, Block Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 6 - Anupama Saraugi Aged About 50 Years, Presently Posted As Lecturer L.B. (English), Government High School, Acholi, Block Berla, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For State-Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 22-07-2025 Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.17 19:48:06 +0530 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 23- 06-2025 passed by Respondent No.3 rejecting the representation of the petitioner 2 and the order dated 04-06-2025 by which the petitioner has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School Nagdha, Block Nawagarh. She also challenged the list of surplus teachers dated 02-06-2025 and revised list of surplus teachers dated 03-06- 2025 and claimed following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 23.06.2025, issued by the District Education Officer / Co- Member Secretary, District Yuktiyuktkaran, Samiti, Bemetara (C.G.) (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) issued by the Collector and Chairman, District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Bemetara, (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside list of excess/surplus teachers vide order Dated 02.06.2025 issued by District Education Officer and Member Secretary District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Annexure P/3), to the extent of petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the revised list for counselling of excess/surplus teachers vide order Dated 03.06.2025 issued by District Education Officer and Member Secretary District Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Annexure P/4), to the extent of the petitioner. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue the list of all vacancies lie in all schools. Further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, not to force the name of the petitioner (teacher) against one place of posting but to give options to the petitioner to choose from the nearest schools where vacant post lies. 10.6 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and 3 proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I vide order dated 01-02- 2013 and was posted at Govt. High School Deori, Block Berla, District Bemetara. Vide transfer order dated 21-05-2018 she was transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School Achholi (mentioned as ‘Acholi in the present writ petition), Block Berla, District Bemetara and since then she was discharging her duty there. The State Govt. issued the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner is declared surplus at Govt. Higher Secondary School Achholi and she has been posted at Govt. High School Nagdha, Block Nawagarh vide order dated 04-06-2025. The order dated 04-06-2025 was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No.4405/2025 which was disposed of on 11-06- 2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee who was directed to decide the representation within a stipulated time-frame. Pursuant to the order dated 11-06-2025 the petitioner made representation on 13-06-2025 and appeared before the said District Level Rationalization Committee on 16-06-2025, thereafter, her representation has been rejected on 23-06-2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there are total 243 students at Govt. Higher Secondary School Achholi from class 9th to 12th and the petitioner is teaching English subject along with Geography subject to the students of Class 12th because there is no teacher for Geography subject in the school. He would further submit that the respondent No.6 has been posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School Achholi vide order dated 05-05-2025 which makes the 4 petitioner surplus in the school. The entire process of rationalization is tainted and the list dated 02-06-2025 prepared for surplus teachers is prepared ignoring the seniority of the petitioner in place of her posting. The respondent authorities issued the revised list of surplus teachers in the school on 03-06-2025. The petitioner is not provided any opportunity of hearing before issuing the list and the authorities have passed the order dated 04-06-2025 whereby the petitioner has been posted at Govt. High School Nagdha. There is complete violation of Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 and the action of the authorities is colourable exercise of their powers. The representation of the petitioner has been decided by the same authority who has passed the order dated 04-06-2025. Class 7 C of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 has been violated and her representation has been decided in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 23-06-2025 (Annexure-P/1), 04-06-2025 (Annexure-P/2), list of surplus teachers dated 02-06-2025 and amended list of surplus teachers dated 03-06-2025 are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that respondent No.6 has been reinstated in service on 05-05-2025 in compliance of the order passed by this Court on the post of Lecturer Panchayat. As per the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 and other official communications, there is direction to not to declare surplus those panchayat teachers who have not been merged with the Education Department, since the respondent No.6 is Lecturer Panchayat, she cannot be declared surplus and therefore, as the petitioner is Teacher (English) who is Lecturer (LB) has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. High School Nagdha. He would further submit that in compliance of 5 the order dated 11-06-2025 passed in WPS No.4405/2025 the petitioner moved her representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee raising her grievances which has been decided by the said Committee constituted under Clause 1 C of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 and the said Committee was headed by the District Collector and the District Education Officer is the Member Secretary of the said Committee. After due approval of the said Committee respondent No.3 has issued the order which is the competent authority to pass the orders. He would also submit that the petitioner was provided proper opportunity of hearing when she made representation on 13-06-2025 and after hearing her on 16-06-2025 the order dated 23-06-2025 has been passed rejecting her representation. Therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
Decision
annexed with the writ petition. 5. Main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 had joined the school on 05-05-2025 and she is junior to the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus which is violation of Clause 7 C 3 of the Rationalization Instructions. From perusal of the order dated 23-06-2025 in para 5 the respondent authorities have observed that respondent No.6 has been reinstated vide order dated 05-05-2025 in compliance of the order passed by this Court and she was reinstated on the post of Lecturer Panchayat. It has also been observed that as per the memo dated 28-04-2025 issued by the State Govt., School Education Department and other oral instructions dated 30-04-2025, 06-05-2025, 13-05-2025 and 26-05-2025, respondent No.6 who is a Lecturer Panchayat cannot be declared surplus as she was not absorbed in the School Education Department. The 6 observation made by the authorities in para 5 is relevant and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “5@ Jherh ljkst flag ;|fi 'kkldh; mPprj ek/;fed 'kkyk vNksyh fodkl[kaM csjyk esa iwoZ ls inLFk vaxzsth fo"k; dh O;k[;krk gSa] rFkkfi fnukad 05@05@2025 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds ifjikyu esa Jherh vuqiek ljkoxh dks O;k[;krk iapk;r in ij cgky fd;k x;k gSA NŸkhlx<+ 'kklu Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou u;k jk;iqj vVy uxj dk i= dzekad ,Q 2&24@2024@ 20& rhu] uok jk;iqj] fnukad 28@04@2025 ,oa lapkyd] yksd f’k{k.k lapkyuky;] vVy uxj jk;iqj }kjk cSBd fnukad 30-04-2025 rFkk ohfM;ks dkaQzsal fnukad 06-05-2025] 13-05-2025 ,oa 26-05-2025 esa fn, x, vko’;d fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vkyksd esa iapk;r f’k{kdksa dks ftudk lafofy;u ugha gqvk gS] vfr’ks"k dh x.kuk esa ugha fy;k tkuk Fkk ,oa mlds Åij nwljs f’k{kd dks vfr’ks"k esa fy, tkus dk funsZ’k FkkA Jherh vuqiek ljkoxh ds O;k[;krk iapk;r gksus ds dkj.k vaxzsth fo"k; dh nwljh O;k[;krk Jherh ljkst flag O;k[;krk ,y-ch- dh x.kuk vfr’ks"k f’k{kd esa fd;k x;k ,oa gkbZ Ldwy ux/kk esa inLFkkiuk fd;k x;kA” 6. The other grievance of the petitioner that the same authority who has passed the order dated 04-06-2025 has passed the order dated 23-06-2025 deciding the representation of the petitioner which cannot be done. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04-06-2025 in WPS No.4405/2025 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the concerned District Level Rationalization Committee and to appear before the said Committee and then the Committee was directed to decide the representation within a stipulated time- frame. The petitioner has also appeared before the said Committee on 16-06-2025 and after hearing her the Committee has decided her representation on 23-06-2025. The said District Level Rationalization Committee has been constituted by the State Govt. vide order dated 02-08-2024 and the relevant part of the order dated 02-08- 7 2024 in this regard is as under:- C. ;qfDr;qDrdj.k gsrq lfefr dk xBu%& iii. XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX iv lfefr ftyk Lrjh; lfefr & lfefr ds fuEukuqlkj inkf/kdkjh gksaxs& A. ftyk dysDVj &v/;{k B. eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r &lnL; C. ftyk eq[;ky; ds vk;qDr] uxj fuxe @eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh D. ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh E. ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh@ ftyk efgyk cky fodkl vf/kdkjh &lnL; &lnL; lfpo &lnL; 7. When this Court directed the petitioner to raise her grievances before the said Committee vide order dated 11-06-2025 and after examining the records of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and after hearing her the said Committee has decided the representation and after due approval of the said Committee the order has been issued by respondent No.3 which cannot be said to be without competency or without authority to issue such order. The order dated 23-06-2025 clearly bears with endorsement ‘¼ftyk ;qfDr;qDrdj.k lfefr }kjk vuqeksfnr½‘ the petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the order dated 23-06- 2025 and order dated 04-06-2025 warranting interference of this Court with the impugned orders. 8. 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 8 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 does 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 orders is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge