1 - Smt. Khemlata Goswami W/o Shri Rajendra Giri Goswami Aged About 46 Years v. 1 - State Of C.G Through Secretary, School Education Dept. Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7836 of 2025 1 - Smt. Khemlata Goswami W/o Shri Rajendra Giri Goswami Aged About 46 Years R/o Pradipti Nagar, Borasi Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G Through Secretary, School Education Dept. Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Level Yuktiyuktkaran Committee Durg Through President / Nodal Officer District Collector, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director School Education Dug Region District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Cum Member Of Yuktiyuktkaran Committee, Durg District - Durg (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt. Poornima Sahu Head Master Govt. Middle School, Khamaria Machandur, District - Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 23/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P/11), whereby her representation VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.04 18:15:42 +0530 2 before the District Level Rationalization Committee has been rejected and also against the list of surplus Teachers (Annexure P/1), in which she has been declared surplus and prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition :- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus as to quash the Annexure P-1 and P-11 with commanding the respondent no. 2 to 4 to correct/amend/delete the list of surplus teachers relating to the petitioner considering that the respondent no. 5 is the junior most teacher and she is surplus and from date of joining in the school the petitioner is teaching English subject. 10.2 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.” 2. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) and presently posted at Govt. Middle School, Machandur, Block and District Durg, has been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Against declaring her surplus, she has filed WPS No. 4835 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2025 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the District Level Rationalization Committee and shall appear there on 23.06.2025, who shall take a decision in accordance with law within seven days, in objective manner. After passing of the order by this Court on 17.06.2025, the petitioner moved her representation and then she was being called on 27.06.2025, and after hearing her, the District Level Rationalization Committee rejected her representation on 01.07.2025 (Annexure P/11). 3 4. The State Government vide its notification No. GENCOR-35010/1738/ 2025-GAD-5, dated 07.07.2025, constituted a Divisional Level Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned division, to examine the orders passed by the authorities on the representation of the Teachers/Lecturers, but after passing of the order dated 01.07.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 10.07.2025, and therefore, she is not willing to pursue her remedies before the said Divisional Committee and argued the case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has illegally declared as surplus and no proper counseling was done, even after passing of the order by this Court. The petitioner is the only teacher in English, whereas she has been considered as Teacher (Commerce) and she is senior to other Teacher (English), and therefore, she cannot be declared surplus. The respondent No.5 Smt. Purnima Sahu is junior to her, she has not been declared surplus. She would further submit that though no posting order of the petitioner has been issued under the Rationalization Instructions, but in view of the fact that she has been declared surplus, her posting order definitely been issued by the authorities and under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, she is not surplus. The rotation of subject has wrongly been considered by the authorities while declaring the petitioner surplus, and therefore, the impugned list of surplus teachers with respect to the petitioner as well as order dated 01.07.2025 passed by District Level Rationalization Committee are erroneous and are liable to be quashed. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, the petitioner has been declared surplus at Govt. Middle School, Machandur. Total 133 students are there at Govt. Middle School, Machandur and there was requirement of 05 teachers, whereas 07 teachers were working. Therefore, as per the rotation of subjects, two teachers have been declared surplus. The headmaster of the school was considered under Arts subject and other teachers of English, Maths, Science and Hindi have been considered. Since there were 03 teachers in Arts subject, the junior teacher Smt. Khemlata Goswami (petitioner) and Smt. Mordhwaj Chouhan have been declared surplus. The District Level Rationalization Committee has also found that as per the promotion order dated 30.08.2006 and graduation mark-sheet of B.Com of the petitioner, she was considered as the Teacher (Commerce) and not the Teacher (English). There were 2-2 teachers in Arts and Commerce subject in the school and therefore, 1-1 teacher in both the subjects of Arts and Commerce have been declared surplus, in which one is the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has rightly been declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions and her representation has also rightly been rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 8. The petitioner, who is a Teacher is claiming that she should not be treated as surplus teacher in the school and the subject rotation has erroneously considered by the authorities. The claim of the petitioner that she is the Teacher (English), but she has been considered as 5 Teacher (Commerce), however the authorities, while considering her representation has observed that on scrutiny of her promotion order dated 30.08.2006 and her graduation mark-sheet of B.Com she is the Teacher (Commerce) and therefore, she has been considered as Teacher (Commerce). It is also observed in the order dated 01.07.2025 that there were 2-2 teachers in Arts and Commerce subjects and the headmaster of the school cannot be declared surplus, and therefore, the petitioner has been declared surplus. Admittedly, no posting order has been issued till date. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in Rationalization process, which warrants interference in the present petition. 9. 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 6 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. 10.
Decision
In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, further that no posting order of the petitioner has been issued till date, no case for interference with the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P/11) and list of surplus teachers with respect to the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge