1 - Smt. Rima Bisen W/o Prakash Singh Aged About 45 Years Occupation Teacher v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7712 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rima Bisen W/o Prakash Singh Aged About 45 Years Occupation Teacher Posted At Government Middle School Ayodhyapuri, Katghora District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Secretary And District Education Officer District Level Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Block Education Officer, Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 19:37:29 +0530 Order on Board 2 21/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 03.06.2025 and 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1 and P/2), whereby the petitioner has been posted to Govt. Middle School, Dhukupathra, Block Pali, District Korba, under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her representation has been rejected and she claimed
Decision
the following relief(s) in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned order dated. 27.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) and may direct the respondents to kindly keep the petitioner posted at his present place of posting ie. Government Middle School Ayodhyapuri, Katghora District Korba (C.G.), in the interest of Justice. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. This is the second round of litigation. Against the order dated 03.06.2025, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 4725 of 2025 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 16.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee, who shall decide the same within the stipulated period. In compliance of the order dated 16.06.2025, the petitioner made her representation and appeared on 20.06.2025 before the District Level Rationalization Committee and after hearing her, her representation has been rejected on 27.06.2025 and both these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (English) and teaching in English subject in the school since last 06 months. She has English Literature as one of the subjects in 3 her post-graduation, therefore, she ought to have been considered as Teacher (English), however she has been considered as Teacher (Science). Her representation has been mechanically rejected by the authorities without considering her educational qualification as well as teaching status in the school and she has wrongly been considered as Teacher (Science). He would further submit that the petitioner has been declared surplus at Middle School, Ayodhyapuri, but the authorities have issued an order on 08.07.2025 for appointment of honorary teacher in the school showing there are vacancy of teachers, therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner as well as 27.06.2025 is liable to be quashed and the petitioner may be posted at her initial place of posting. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions would submit that the petitioner is a teacher in the Science subject and teaching Science subject in the school. The strength of the students in the school is 105 and as per clause 7-B(2) of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, four teachers including the headmaster, were required. There were 03 teachers posted for Science subject and since the petitioner is junior to other teacher of Science subject in the school, she has been declared surplus and posted at Middle School, Dhukupathra, therefore, there is no ground in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is the subject teacher 4 of English as English Literature was one of the subjects in her post- graduation, and therefore, she should be considered as a Teacher of the English subject and as per the roster, she may not be treated as a surplus teacher at Govt. Middle School, Ayodhyapuri. There is no definition of "Subject Teacher" in the Rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. The literal meaning of Subject Teacher is that the teachers, who are teaching the particular subject in the school may be called as subject teacher. The appointment of the petitioner is not for any particular subject. She may have a subject of English Literature in her post-graduation, but she cannot be considered a Teacher (English) only for the reason that she had the English Literature subject in her post-graduation. 7. The authorities have considered the petitioner as Teacher (Science) and since the petitioner is junior to other teachers, she has been declared surplus. As per the strength of the students in the school, 04 teachers were required including the headmaster, as provided under clause 7-B(2) of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. The District Level Rationalization Committee after hearing the petitioner rejected her representation on 27.06.2025 and from perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, which warrants interference of this Court. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the orders impugned, so that it may be quashed. 8. Even otherwise, Teacher Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplant the general powers of the employer provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a 5 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 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. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any statutory Rules and Regulations. 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 are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge