Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Seema Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:27862
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6139 of 2025
1 - Smt. Seema Prasad W/o Anil Kumar Ranjan Aged About 55 Years
Occupation- Teacher (L.B.) (Math) R/o- E.W.S. Housing Board, Kohka, Bhilai,
District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
4 - District Education Officer District- Durg, Chhattisgarh/ Member Secretary
District Level Rationalization Committee, Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
25/06/2025
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning her name in
Digitally signed
by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.06.26
18:42:12 +0530
2
the list of surplus Teachers (Maths) issued by the office of District
Education Officer, Durg, dated 31.05.2025 and prayed the following
reliefs in the writ petition:-
“10.1 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the
record.
10.2 This That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set aside the impugned order dated
28.04.2025 (Annexure-P/3) in respect of the petitioner
and also to quash the List of excess teacher/Notice of
Counseling dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure-P/4) with
respect to petitioner further be pleased to declare the
merger policy (Annexure-P/5) dated 02/08/2024 as
illegal and void ab initio.
10.3 This Hon’ble Court be further Pleased to pass
Such order in Favour of the petitioner against the
respondent as it may deem fit under the facts and
circumstances.
10.4 Costs of the Petition may be allowed.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
posted as Teacher (LB) Maths, at Govt. Middle School, Kosa Nagar,
however, her name has been declared as surplus Teacher and a list
has been prepared on 31.05.2025, by which she has been called on
02.06.2025 for counseling process. The name of the petitioner has
been considered as surplus Teacher ignoring the seniority of the
petitioner as also the Rationalization Instructions. The petitioner is
posted at Govt. Middle School, Vrindanagar, where there is no excess
Teachers. There is violation of conditions of merger policy of the
schools and the junior to the petitioner has not been declared as
surplus Teacher and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. It
3
is also submitted that the petitioner is also challenging the Merger
Policy, dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P/5).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit
that the petitioner has been called for counseling and from the
documents annexed with the petition, it has not been shown that she
has been transferred from her present place of posting. Merely
declaring the petitioner as surplus Teacher, would not give her any
cause of action to challenge the list of surplus Teachers. The
Rationalization Instructions is meant to give effect to mandate of
fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and
also under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009. There is no proper pleading in the petition, as to how the
Rationalization Instructions is void ab initio, therefore, the same cannot
be considered in the present petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material
available in the petition.
5. The petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) Maths and posted at Govt.
Middle School, Vrindanagar vide order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure
P/1) has been declared as surplus Teacher, whose name is find place
in the list prepared by the office of District Education Officer, Durg,
which is annexed with the petition at page 16, and she was called for
counseling on 02.06.2025. As stated by the petitioner that there is no
transfer order issued against her till date, and therefore, this Court is of
the considered opinion that no cause of action arose in favour of the
4
petitioner to challenge her status as surplus Teacher. The dispute
involved in this case, being factual in nature, ought not to go into when
the Rationalization Instructions itself provides the mode of
consideration for rationalization. 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. 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