[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Binda Ghritlahare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7732 of 2025
1 - Smt. Binda Ghritlahare W/o Shri Sidh Ram Ghritlahare Aged About 51
Years R/o House No. 276, Gayakwad Para, Jamrao District - Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School
Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Director Directorate Of School Education Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan,
Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director Deppartment Of Education Division Durg District - Durg
(C.G.)
4 - Collector District - Durg (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer District - Durg (C.G.)
6 - Block Education Officer Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)
7 - District Education Officer District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
8 - Block Education Officer Block Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
9 - Mr. K.K. Patel Teacher Govt. Middle School, Jamrao Tahsil Patan District -
Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.08.13
19:07:17
+0530
2Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board12/08/2025
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the
following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records in relation to the case of the
petitioner from the possession of respondents for its
kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned orders dated 01.07.2025
(Annexure-P/1) and 07.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) as the
same is passed in violation of the yuktiyuktkaran
policy.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the
respondent authorities to direct the respondent
authorities not to consider the petitioner as surplus
teacher and direct to consider respondent no. 9 as a
surplus teacher and transfer him in place of the
petitioner.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly hold that the
entire counseling process has been conducted by the
respondent authorities in violation of the
Yuktiyuktkaran policy.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner,
which the Hon’ble Court deems fit & just in the facts
3and circumstances of the case, including awarding of
the costs to the petitioner.”
2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had challenged her
posting order dated 07.06.2025, in WPS No. 4756 of 2025, which was
disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2025, directing the petitioner to
make fresh representation before the concerned District Rationalisation
Committee, who shall decide the representation of the petitioner, in
accordance with law, in objective manner. The petitioner had
approached before the District Level Rationalisation Committee and on
27.06.2025, after hearing the petitioner, the said District Level
Committee has passed the order on 01.07.2025, rejecting the
representation of the petitioner.
3. When a specific query has been raised, as to why the petitioner has
not approached before the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee
as constituted by the State Government vide notification dated
07.07.2025, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that, if an observation is being made by this Court that, the
representation of the petitioner would be decided by the said
committee, in objective manner, the petitioner is ready to go before the
committee, but the committee is not passing any order on merits and
the committee is dismissing all the representations. Therefore, this
Court may pass the order on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the
petitioner, who is presently posted at Middle School, Jamrao, District
Durg, has been posted under the Rationalisation Instructions dated
4
02.08.2024 to Govt. Middle School, Birkona, Block Kawardha, District
Kabirdham. The petitioner was considered as a Teacher (Hindi) at the
time of merger, vide order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/4), whereas
at the time of rationalisation, she has been considered as Teacher
(Arts). He would also submit that, a separate list of Teacher (Hindi) and
(Arts) has been prepared over rationalisation, but the petitioner, despite
having Teacher (Hindi), has been considered as Teacher (Arts). He
would also submit that, in the district level rationalisation counselling,
she has not been called. However, after completion of district level
rationalisation counselling, her name has been displayed in divisional
level rationalisation counselling, and thereby she was deprived to opt
the school of her choice. It is also submitted that, another Teacher
(English) Mr. K.K. Patel, who is junior to one Mr. R.K. Thakur, has not
been declared surplus, and thereby, the subject and language, is not
the criteria for consideration of rationalisation. Yet, the petitioner has
been declared surplus, and has been posted to Birkona school.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has
submitted that, considering the strength of students in the school and
requirement of teachers there, the petitioner has been considered as
Teacher (Arts) and she has been declared surplus there. The petitioner
is having alternate remedy of approaching before the Divisional Level
Rationalisation Committee as per the circular issued on 07.07.2025 by
the State Government. The posting of the petitioner is, under the strict
compliance of rationalisation instructions and there is no arbitrary or
mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities, while declaring the
petitioner surplus, and posting her at Middle School, Birkona. The
5
grounds raised by the petitioner are factual disputes, which can very
well be considered by the Divisional Level Rationalisation Committee,
and no relief in the present writ petition can be granted to the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel parties and perused the material
annexed with the petition.
7. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has been considered as
surplus, at Govt. Middle School, Jamrao, District Durg and she has
been posted at Govt. Middle School, Birkona, Block Kawardha, District
Kabirdham. She has been treated as Teacher (Arts), and has been
posted at Birkona school. In the order dated 01.07.2025, while
considering the representation of the petitioner, the District Level
Rationalisation Committee has considered that, the Middle School,
Jamrao was having 176 students, and there was requirement of 07
teachers. However, total 10 teachers were working in the school, and
as per the rotational calculation in view of the subjects, as provided
under clause 7-B(5) of the Rationalisation Instructions dated
02.08.2024, the petitioner has been declared surplus. Although, at the
time of merger, in the year 2018, she was considered to be a Teacher
(Hindi), but so far as the purposes of rationalisation, she has been
considered as Teacher (Arts), as there is no subject specified in her
appointment order, that she is a Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher (Arts), and
it is for the school concerned, at the time of rationalisation, in which
she was teaching in the school. Whether or not, the petitioner is a
Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher (Arts), it is for the authorities concerned to
take a decision, and if the authorities concerned have considered the
6
petitioner as Teacher (Arts), and declared her surplus at Govt. Middle
School, Jamrao, this Court cannot examine while deciding the writ
petition, as to whether the petitioner is a Teacher (Hindi) or Teacher
(Arts). It is based on the records submitted before the District Level
Rationalization Committee at the time of deciding her representation,
and as she was provided opportunity of hearing on 27.06.2025 to
appear before the District Level Rationalization Committee. After
hearing the petitioner on 27.06.2025, the District Level Rationalization
Committee has passed the order on 01.07.2025, in which I do not find
any perversity or illegality to interfere with the same.
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 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
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
order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_2]
Source link