1

2026:CGHC:27015

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order reserved on

Final order delivered on

Final order uploaded on

:23

rd

June, 2026

2

nd

July, 2026

2

nd

July, 2026

WPS No. 4137 of 2025

1 - Chhattisgarh Vidyalayin Shikshak Karmachari Sangh Through

Its State President Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri

Ramchand Tiwari Aged 54 Years H.Q. - 624 Prince Colony Laxmi

Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Purshottam Lal Sapha S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sapha Aged About

54 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle School

Dundera Block And Durg (C.G.)

3 - Jainendra Kumar Ganjir S/o Late Shri Romnath Ganjir Aged

About 54 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle

School Teligundra Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

4 - Sanjay Kumar Chandrakar S/o Kartik Ram Chandrakar Aged

About 54 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle

School Alldaras Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

5 - Jitendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Dayalu Ram Verma Aged

About 55 Years Govt. Middle School Teligundra Block Patan

District - Durg (C.G.)

6 - Smt. Malti Mandavi W/o Shri Ghanshyam Mandavi Aged About

47 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb). Govt. Middle School

Mahkakala Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

7 - Huleshwar Prasad Tandan S/o Firanta Ram Tandan Aged

2

About 49 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle

School Tekari Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

8 - Khilendra Kumar Sahu S/o Nand Kumar Sahu Aged About 44

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) . Govt. Middle School Teligundra

Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

9 - Meena Sinwani W/o Shri Shyamratan Chaturvedi Aged About

42 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) . Govt. Middle School Parsada

Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

10 - Thakur Ram Dewangan S/o Late Ramgulal Dewangan Aged

About 54 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School

Borenda Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

11 - Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Rajpal Sahu Aged About 40 Years

Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle School Bhansuli (R)

Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

12 - Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri T.R. Verma Aged About 54

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle School Marra

Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

13 - Kishor Kumar Dilliwar S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Dilliwar Aged

About 47 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle

School Jevra Sirsa Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

14 - Goverdhan Prasad Chandravanshi S/o Late Shri Vishambhar

Aged About 54 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) . Govt. Middle

School Ghasidas Nagar Ghughasi Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

15 - Tribhuwan Singh S/o Purshottam Singh Aged About 48 Years

Posted As Teacher (Lb) . Govt. Middle School Chandrakhuri Block

And District - Durg (C.G.)

16 - Chitrarekha Thakur W/o Chandulal Thakur Aged About 44

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Chandrakhuri

Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

17 - Krihna Kumar Deshmukh S/o Kholbhahara Ram Deshmukh

Aged About 49 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle

School Jevra Sirsa Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

18 - Chetan Singh Sahu S/o Guman Singh Sahu Aged About 52

Years Posted As U.D.T. Govt. Middle School Chandrakhuri Block

And District - Durg (C.G.)

19 - Smt. Saroj Khutiyare W/o Omprakash Khutiyare Aged About

50 Years Posted As Asstt. Teacher (Lb) Govt. Primary School

3

Pisegaon Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

20 - Smt. Meena Bhadauriya W/o Ratnesh Singh Bhadauriya

Aged About 40 Years Posted As Asstt. Teacher (Lb) Govt.

Primary School Pisegaon Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

21 - Devkinandan Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma

Aged About 41 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt.

Middle School Chandrakhuri Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

22 - Anupam Agrawal S/o Bramhanand Agrawal Aged About 46

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle School Chikhli

Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

23 - Smt. Meena Sharma D/o Ramvinit Sharam Aged About 51

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Chikhli Block

And District - Durg (C.G.)

24 - Brijkishore Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma Aged

About 48 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt. Middle

School Rasmada Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

25 - Hojendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jogiram Verma Aged About

48 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Rasmada

Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

26 - Smt. Madhuri Patel W/o Shri Mrinal Patel Aged About 43

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Pauvara

Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

27 - Smt. Niharika Dubey W/o Shri Animesh Kumar Dubey Aged

About 44 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School

Pauvara Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

28 - Rajeshwar Prasad Deshmukh S/o Shri Agnu Ram Deshmukh

Aged About 44 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) C.A.C. Govt.

Middle School Puraina Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

29 - Nehru Lal Sonwani S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Sonwani Aged

About 42 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School

Dundera Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

30 - Rakesh Kumar Tandan S/o Shri Sohan Tandan Aged About

43 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Joratarai

Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

31 - Smt. Deepa Vishwakarma W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Aged

About 43 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School

Joratarai Block And District - Durg (C.G.)

4

32 - Smt. Ishrat Bano W/o Rasuiddin Aged About 43 Years

Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Dundera Block And

District - Durg (C.G.)

33 - Lekhram Chandrakar S/o Late Romlal Chandrakar Aged

About 40 Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School

Gadadih Block Patan District - Durg (C.G.)

34 - Indresh Kumar Banjare S/o Shri O.R. Banjare Aged About 44

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Khopli Block

And District - Durg (C.G.)

35 - Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Mannu Lal Sahu Aged About 39

Years Posted As Teacher (Lb) Govt. Middle School Khopli Block

And District - Durg (C.G.)

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur

Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of School

Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar

District - Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Director Public Instructions Chhattisgarh H. Q. Indrawati

Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Collector District - Durg (C.G.)

5 - The District Education Officer District - Durg (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12633 of 2025

1 - Ramkhilawan Patel S/o Mr. Kawaladhar Patel Aged About 43

Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt.

Primary School, Patelpara Bade Kurushnar, Block Kondagaon,

Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

5

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya

Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Commissioner/president Divisional Rationalization Committee,

Baster Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 712 of 2026

1 - Mrs. Kanchan Sahu W/o Late Mr. Someshwar Sahu Aged

About 43 Years Post- Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt-

Upper Primary School, Nara Block- Kanker Distt- Uttar Kanker Cg

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur

C.G.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Distt-

Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector And President District- Rationalization

Committee Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

4 - District Education Officer District- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District- Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

6 - Joint Director Education Division Baster Jadalpur Distt- Baster

C.G.

7 - Divisional Level Committee Through- Secretary, Division

6

Baster Jagdalpur Distt- Baster C.G.

8 - Smt. Sindhi Shrivastava Teacher Local Body Govt. Upper

Primary School Ghotiya, Block- Kanker Distt- Uttar Kanker C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 14154 of 2025

1 - Smt. Alka Singh W/o Raghuwar Singh Dhruw Aged About 34

Years Posted As Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School

Kalamdand, Block- Manendragarh Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

C.G.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee

Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur C.G.

6 - Divisional Level Committee Through Secretary, Surguja

Division, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja, C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 13631 of 2025

1 - Smt. Savita Gendley W/o Sameer Kumar Gupta, Aged About

35 Years Posted At Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School,

Mauharpara, Ward No. 10, R/o Ward No. 3 Block- Manendragarh

Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri- Bharatpur C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

7

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

(C.G.)

2 - Director, Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.)

4 - District Education Officer, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri-

Bharatpur (C.G.)

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri-

Bharatpur (C.G.)

6 - Divisional Level Committee Education, Sarguja, Division

Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12823 of 2025

1 - Lavan Singh Dhruwe S/o Mr. Ramadhin Dhruwe Aged About

51 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper

Primary School, Barvi, Block Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Baster

Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker,

Chhattisgarh.

8

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker,

Chhattisgarh.

6 - Commissioner/president Divisional Rationalization Committee,

Baster Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12715 of 2025

1 - Abhilasha Shori D/o Mr. Karan Singh Shori Aged About 45

Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt.

Primary School, Baghapara, Nathiyanawagan, Block Kanker Distt.

Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

(C.G.)

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee

Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

6 - Commissioner/ President Divisional Rationalization

Committee, Baster Division, Jagdalpur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12562 of 2025

1 - Rikeshwar Netam S/o Late Mr. Dayaram Netam Aged About

40 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper

Primary School, Dumarkot, Block Antagarh, Distt. Uttar Baster

Kanker C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

9

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

C.G.

2 - Director, Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector And President, District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

4 - District Education Officer, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary, District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

6 - Commissioner/president, Divisional Rationalization Committee,

Baster Division, Jagdalpur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12498 of 2025

1 - Mrs. Jyoti Keshri W/o Mr. Omeshwar Prasad Keshri Aged

About 36 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At

Govt. Primary School, Nandanmara, Chhotepara,block Kanker,

Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

C.G.

2 - Director, Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector And President, District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

4 - District Education Officer, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

6 - Commissioner/president, Divisional Rationalization

10

Committee,baster Division, Jagdalpur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12485 of 2025

1 - Rakesh Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Mr. Punit Ram Nirmalkar Aged

About 42 Years Post Teacher (Locak Body), Posted At Govt.

Upper Primary School, Talabeda, Block Antagarh, Distt. Uttar

Baster Kanker, C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

C.G.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

6 - Commissioner / President Divisional Rationalization

Committee, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12447 of 2025

1 - Khilawan Ram Sahu S/o Mr. Ramratan Sahu Aged About 40

Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary

School, Kadhaikhodra, Block Antagarh, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker,

C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

C.G.

11

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

6 - Commissioner / President Divisional Rationalization

Committee, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12307 of 2025

1 - Mrs. Sunita Salam W/o Gajendar Kumar Salam Aged About 42

Years Assistant Teacher Local Body Posted At Govt, Balak

Ashram, Puswada, Block- Kanker Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker Cg

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur Cg

2 - Director Public Instruction Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt-

Raipur,

3 - The Collector And President District- Rationalization

Committee, District- Uttar Baster Kanker Cg

4 - District Education Officer Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker Cg

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District- Level

Rationalization Committee, Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker Cg

6 - Joint Director Education Division Baster Jagdalpur Distt-

Baster Cg

7 - Block Education Officer Block- Kanker, Distt- Uttar Baster

Kanker Cg

--- Respondent(s)

12

WPS No. 12280 of 2025

1 - Mrs. Sarita Kumar W/o Mr. Krishna Kumar Aged About 43

Years Post Assistant Teacher Local Body, Posted At Govt.

Primary School, Ichhapur, Block Kanker Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker

C.G

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

C.G

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur

3 - The Collector And President District Raitonalization Committee

Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C.G.

6 - Member Secretary Divisional Rationalization Hearing

Committee Cum Joint Director, Education Division, Raipur,

Integrate Education Complex, First Floor, Pension Bada, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

7 - Block Education Officer Block Kanker Distt. Uttar Baster

Kanker C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12240 of 2025

1 - Smt. Bhagwati Bariha W/o Mr. Radheshyam Bariha Aged

About 35 Years R/o Village Domarpali, Post Baloda Tahsil

Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur

C.G

13

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee

Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

4 - District Education Officer Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

6 - Member Secretary Divisional Rationalization Hearing

Committee Cum Joint Director, Education Division, Raipur,

Integrate Education Complex, First Floor, Pension Bada, Distt.

Raipur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12051 of 2025

1 - Durgu Ram Kunjam S/o Mr. Chamra Ram Kunjam Aged About

61 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt.

Primary School Koliyari, Block Kanker, District Uttar Bastar

Kanker, C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,

C.G.

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee

District Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

4 - District Education Officer District Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee District Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G.

6 - Joint Director Education, Division Baster Jagdalpur, District

Baster C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

14

WPS No. 8268 of 2025

1 - Smt. Abha Jha W/o Amulya Chandra Jha Aged About 45

Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Government

Primary School, Lalmatipara, Block - Manendragarh, District

Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School

Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur

(C.G.)

2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District -

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization

Committee, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

4 - District Education Officer District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur (C.G.)

5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level

Rationalization Committee, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 7049 of 2025

1 - Smt. Rajani Thawait W/o Shri Parmeshwar Thawait Khadwang

Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Government Primary

School, Belkamar, Block - Khadgavan District - Manendragarh-

Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 497449

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan,

Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002

3 - Collector Collector Complex, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

15

Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 497442

4 - District Education Officer Deo Office, District Manendragarh-

Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 497442

5 - Block Education Officer Block - Khadgawan, District

Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 497442

6 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) President Of Block-Level

Committee Block - Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-

Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 497442

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 8245 of 2025

1 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Narendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About

35 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government

Primary School, Bancharouda, Block Arang, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department

Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions (Dpi) Through Its

Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgah.

3 - Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Join Director, School Education Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5 - District Education Officer, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At

Government Primary School, Bancharouda, Block Arang, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 7564 of 2025

1 - Rajiv Kumar Goutam Son Of Radheshyam Goutam Aged

About 46 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Lb) And Posted At

16

Govt. Primary School Baheradih, Block Jaijaipur, District - Sakti,

Chhattisgarh.

2 - Tushen Kumar Maheshwari Son Of Samay Lal Maheshwari

Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Lb) And

Posted At Govt. Primary School Parsada, Block - Sakti, District -

Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Ajay Kumar Banjare Son Of Kholbahra Banjare Aged About 37

Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Lb) And Posted At Govt.

Primary School Baheradih, Block -Sakti, District - Sakti,

Chhattisgarh.

4 - Hari Ram Chandra Son Of Jhuru Ram Chandra Aged About 37

Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Lb) And Posted At Govt.

Primary School Nehru Nagar Kutrabor, Block Jaijaipur, District -

Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Chandra Shekhar Chouhan S/o Satyanand Chouhan Aged

About 44 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Lb) And Posted At

Govt. Primary School Bhadora, Block - Malkharoda, District -

Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur,

District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Collector Sakti, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

3 - District Education Officer Sakti, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 9250 of 2025

1 - Amit Kumar Dhankar S/o Chandrapal Aged About 41 Years

Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary

School, Kumhari, Block Arang District Raipur C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar

Naya, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

17

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan,

Atal Nagar Naya, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

3 - Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

4 - Collector, District Raipur C.G.

5 - District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

6 - Block Education Officer, Arang, District Raipur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 8552 of 2025

1 - Abhijeet Rao S/o Late Chandrashekhar Rao Aged About 43

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle

School Pali, Block Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.)

2 - Kripalu Das Deewan S/o Pusau Das Deewan Aged About 44

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle

School Chhindiya Block Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.)

3 - Yugal Koshor Tiwari S/o Ravishankar Tiwari Aged About 45

Years Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Middle

School Hardewa , Block Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.)

4 - Prem Chand Yadav S/o Murit Ram Yadav Aged About 44

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle

School Amjhar Block Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of

School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya

Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan

Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur

(C.G.)

4 - Collector District Korba (C.G.)

5 - District Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.)

18

6 - Block Edcation Officer Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.)

7 - Block Edcation Officer Pali , District Korba (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 9305 of 2025

1 - Smt. Bhagwati Thakur W/o Bhupendra Thakur, Aged About 60

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle

School, Kumhari, Block Dharsiwa District Raipur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar

Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan,

Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Collector, District Raipur (C.G.)

5 - District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

6 - Block Education Officer, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 9935 of 2025

1 - Ravindra Bagde S/o Baburao Bagde Aged About 49 Years

Presently Working As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Singhari,

Block- Bilha, District - Bilaspur C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Education, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati

19

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

3 - The Joint Director, Education Division, District Bilaspur C.G.

4 - The Collector Cum President, District Level Rationalization

Committee, District Bilaspur C.G.

5 - The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 12475 of 2025

1 - Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Federation A Society

Registered Under The Provisions Of C.G. Society Registration

Act, 1973 Having Its Registered Office At Laxmi Niwas, Plot C-75,

Street 15, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai District Durg C.G. Through Its

Member Harish Dewangan, S/o Late Shri J.R. Dewangan, Aged

About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 29 Hospital Colony, Near Indira

Market Station Road, Durg, District Durg C.G.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,

Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, First Floor, Block -

C, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur C.G.

3 - Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

4 - Joint Director, Education Division Durg, Dist. Durg C.G.

5 - Joint Director, Education Division Bastar, Jagdalpur, Dist.

Bastar C.G.

6 - Joint Director, Education Division- Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur

C.G.

7 - Joint Director, Education Division- Surguja, Ambikapur, District

Surguja C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

20

WPS No. 9821 of 2025

1 - Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramdular Yadav Aged About

43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (Cac), Government

Middle School Dhuma, Block- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of

Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur

(C.G.)

4 - The Collector Cum President District Level Rationalization

Committee, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

5 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

6 - The Block Education Officer Block- Bilha, District- Bilaspur

(C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 5975 of 2025

1 - Peeyoosh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal

Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At

Government Primary School, Bhandardai, Block - Khadgawan,

District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 497335

2 - Shiv Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Ramnarayan Prajapati Aged

About 40 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At

Government Primary School, Khalpara, Block - Khadgawan,

District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 497335

3 - Mohan Lal Banjare S/o Shri Dakhal Sai Aged About 49 Years

Presently Posted As Teacher At Government Upper Primary

School, Govindpur, Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 497335

4 - Vijay Singh S/o Shri Dritpal Singh Aged About 50 Years

21

Presently Posted As Teacher At Government Upper Primary

School, Ratanpur, Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 497335

5 - Dhan Sai S/o Shri Babulal Singh Aged About 43 Years

Presently Posted As Government Upper Primary School, Shivpur,

Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur,

Chhattisgarh 497335

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh D.E.O. Office, District Manendragarh-

Chirmiri-Bharatpur

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan,

Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Collector Collector Complex, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-

Bharatpur

4 - District Education Officer D.E.O. Office, District Manendragarh-

Chirmiri-Bharatpur

5 - Block Education Officer Block - Khadgawan, District

Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur

6 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Revenue Division - Khadgawan,

District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur

…. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For respective

Petitioners

:Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior

Advocate along with Mr. Shrawan

Agrawal and Mr, Kaif Ali Rizvi, Mr. R.K.

Kesharwani, Mr. Devashish Tiwari

through V.C. along with Mr. Deepak

Kaushik, Mr. Sibasish Mishra, Mr.

Parag Kotecha, Mr. Rupendra Kumar

Dewangan, Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu and

Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate

For State :Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. along with

Mr. Shahil Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

C A V Order

22

1.Since common facts and grounds are involved in these

petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common

order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and

documents of WPS No.12475 of 2025 are being referred.

2.(a) Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the

petitioners have called in question the rationalization

instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the consequential

communication dated 28.04.2025 on the ground that the

same are contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, "the

Act of 2009") and the National Education Policy, 2020 (for

short, "the NEP"). It is submitted that though the impugned

instructions have ostensibly been issued to improve

educational standards through rationalization of schools and

teachers, however, their implementation has seriously

prejudiced both teachers and students and adversely

affected the functioning of schools.

(b) Learned counsels further submit that the impugned policy

is contrary to Section 25 of the Act of 2009, which mandates

maintenance of the prescribed pupil-teacher ratio in each

school. It is contended that the norms prescribed for Primary

and Middle Schools are inconsistent with the statutory

requirement of maintaining the teacher-student ratio school-

23

wise, resulting in depletion of teaching strength in several

schools. According to learned counsel, the impugned

executive instructions cannot override or dilute the statutory

mandate contained in Section 25 of the Act of 2009.

(c) It is next submitted that the impugned instructions have

not been issued in the manner contemplated under Article

166 of the Constitution of India, as they have neither been

expressed nor authenticated in accordance with law. It is

contended that in the absence of compliance with the

constitutional requirements, the impugned instructions

cannot be treated as a valid and enforceable policy decision

of the State Government.

(d) Learned counsels further submit that the rationalization

exercise is arbitrary inasmuch as it disturbs the existing

cluster structure and treats Cluster Academic

Coordinators/Head Masters at par with ordinary teaching

staff. It is submitted that such officers discharge supervisory

and administrative functions and, in many cases, Head

Masters also act as Drawing & Disbursing Officers. Their

inclusion in the pool for rationalization has artificially reduced

the available teaching strength and disturbed a large number

of posts of Head Masters, contrary to the provisions of the

Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Educational and

Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, (for

24

short, "the Rules").

(e) It is further submitted that the entire exercise has been

undertaken arbitrarily and in disregard of the prescribed

norms relating to seniority, placement and counselling.

According to learned counsel, the principle of "Last In First

Out (LIFO)" has been mechanically applied, senior teachers

have been bypassed, and the counselling process stood

vitiated for want of proper disclosure of surplus lists and

vacancies, thereby denying the affected teachers a

meaningful opportunity of choice. It is contended that the

impugned exercise has caused grave hardship to teachers,

adversely affected students, and overlooked the educational

needs of schools. On these grounds, it is prayed that the

rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, the

communications dated 25.04.2025 & 28.04.2025, and all

consequential actions be quashed, with a further direction to

the respondents to accommodate teachers in accordance

with the NEP, 2020.

(f) Learned counsels would submit that the impugned

guidelines are not in conformity with Article 166 (1) of the

Constitution of India as it has not been expressed by order in

the name of the Hon’ble Governor of Chhattisgarh. In support

of their contention, learned counsels would place reliance

upon the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of

25

Smt. Shitala Diwan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

(WPS No. 5780 of 2016 decided on 24.01.2017).

3.While adopting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Parag Kotecha,

learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though

he is questioning the implementation of the policy itself, as

far as the transfer of the petitioners under the rationalization

policy is concerned, the same is contrary to the guidelines

prescribed and also contrary to the provisions of Article 166

of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act of

2009.

4.(I)Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ

petitions and submits that the challenge to the rationalization

instructions dated 02.08.2024 and the consequential

communication dated 28.04.2025 is misconceived and

founded on vague and omnibus pleadings. Referring to

Annexure P-1 dated 28.04.2025, it is submitted that the

impugned instructions are merely administrative guidelines

issued to ensure rational and equitable deployment of

teachers by identifying surplus teachers and redeploying

them to schools facing shortage, including teacher-less and

single-teacher schools, in the larger interest of students. It is

submitted that the policy seeks to rectify the imbalance in

teacher distribution across the State and, therefore, cannot

be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

26

(II) Learned State counsel further submits that the plea

regarding violation of Section 25 of the Act of 2009 is without

any factual foundation, as the petitioners have not placed

any school-wise data to establish breach of the prescribed

pupil-teacher ratio. It is further submitted that the challenge

founded on Article 166 of the Constitution is equally

untenable, as the decision to undertake rationalization was

approved by the Council of Ministers with the concurrence of

Hon'ble the Governor on 09.07.2024 and the impugned

instructions are traceable to a valid executive decision of the

State Government.

(III) Learned State counsel also disputes the contention

regarding disturbance of the cluster structure and inclusion of

Cluster Academic Coordinators/Head Masters in the

rationalization process. It is submitted that the guidelines

themselves provide adequate safeguards and priority to such

categories and, therefore, the grievance proceeds on an

incomplete reading of the policy. It is further submitted that

the allegation regarding violation of the cadre structure or the

Rules is equally devoid of substance, as the petitioners have

neither identified any sanctioned post alleged to have been

abolished nor demonstrated infringement of any enforceable

service right. Learned State counsel submits that the

allegations regarding arbitrary identification of surplus

27

teachers, violation of seniority, non-observance of norms and

irregularities in counselling are general in nature and

unsupported by any specific material. It is contended that the

policy itself prescribes the procedure for identification of

surplus teachers and the order of priority, and no individual

instance of deviation has been substantiated.

(IV) It is further submitted that the impugned instructions are

administrative guidelines and not statutory rules framed

under Article 309 of the Constitution. Since the impugned

exercise neither affects the petitioners' rank, status or

emoluments nor infringes any vested right, no interference is

warranted merely on allegations of hardship. On the

aforesaid grounds, learned State counsel submits that no

violation of any statutory provision, constitutional mandate or

enforceable legal right has been established and, therefore,

all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and perused the pleadings and documents placed on

record.

6.The challenge in the present batch of petitions is directed

against the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, the

consequential communication dated 28.04.2025, and the

action taken pursuant thereto. The principal grounds urged

by the petitioners are that the impugned policy is contrary to

28

Section 25 of the Act, 2009, the NEP, 2020, the Rules and

further that the same has not been issued in conformity with

the Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

7.The first contention of the petitioners is that the impugned

rationalization instructions are not a valid executive policy,

having not been issued in accordance with Article 166 of the

Constitution. The submission deserves rejection.

8.The respondents have placed on record the order of the

School Education Department bearing No. F-2-24/2024/20-3

dated 16.07.2024, which has been passed by order and in

the name of the Hon’ble Governor of Chhattisgarh, which

categorically records that the Council of Ministers, in its

meeting dated 09.07.2024, approved the proposal relating to

rationalization of schools and teachers and authorized the

Department to undertake all consequential action. The order

specifically states:

छत्तीसगढ़शासन

स्कूलशिक्षाविभाग

"मं

त्रालय

"

महानदीभवन

,

नवारायपुरअटल नगर

,

// आ

देश

//

नवारायपुरअटल नगर

,

दिनांक

16/07/2024

क्रमांकएफ

2-24/2024/20-ती

न

:: मं

त्रि

-

परिषद्आदेशदिनांक

29

09.07.2024

मेंनिर्णयलियागयाहैकि

"

शालाएवंशिक्षकोंके

युक्तियुक्तकरणकेसंबंधमेंविभागद्वाराप्रस्तुतप्रस्तावकाअनुमोदन

कियाजाएतथाइससेसंबंधितसमस्तअनुषांगिककार्यवाहीकेलिए

विभागकोअधिकृतकियाजाए।

"

छत्तीसगढ़केराज्यपालकेनामसेतथाआदेशानुसार

,

स

ही

/-

(आ

र

.पी. व

र्मा

)

अवरसचिवछत्तीसगढ़

शा

सन

,

स्कूलशिक्षाविभाग

9.Article 166(1) of the Constitution requires that all executive

action of the State Government shall be expressed to be

taken in the name of the Governor. Article 166 is quoted

below for ready reference :

“166. Conduct of business of the

Government of a State.- (1) All executive

action of the Government of a State shall be

expressed to be taken in the name of the

Governor.

(2) Orders and other instruments made and

executed in the name of the Governor shall be

authenticated in such manner as may be

specified in rules to be made by the Governor,

and the validity of an order or instrument which

is so authenticated shall not be called in

question on the ground that it is not an order or

instrument made or executed by the Governor.

(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more

30

convenient transaction of the business of the

Government of the State, and for the allocation

among Ministers of the said business in so far

as it is not business with respect to which the

Governor is by or under this Constitution

required to act in his discretion.

Once the policy itself emanates from a Cabinet decision and

the consequential departmental order has been issued in the

name of the Governor, the challenge founded upon Article

166 loses all force. The petitioners have not demonstrated

any constitutional infirmity in the decision-making process.

10.The next submission is that the policy violates Section 25 of

the Act, 2009, which mandates maintenance of the

prescribed pupil-teacher ratio.

11.For the sake of convenience, it would be apt to quote Section

25 of the Act, 2009, which reads thus :

25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio.-(1) 1[Within three years]

from the date of commencement of this Act, the

appropriate Government and the local authority shall

ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as specified in

the Schedule, is maintained in each school.

(2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil-Teacher

Ratio under sub-section (1), no teacher posted in a

school shall be made to serve in any other school or

office or deployed for any non-educational purpose,

other than those specified in section 27.

12.From bare perusal of the above provision, it is crystal clear

31

that Section 25 undoubtedly casts an obligation upon the

State Government to maintain the teacher-student ratio

prescribed in the Schedule appended to the Act. However,

the petitioners have not produced any school-wise data,

statistical material or factual foundation to establish that the

implementation of the rationalization policy has actually

resulted in breach of the prescribed ratio. The pleadings

contain only broad assertions unsupported by particulars.

13.It also deserves notice that the policy has been formulated

after the State Government examined the existing teacher-

student ratio, the availability of teachers across the State and

the requirement of teachers in institutions suffering from

shortage. The material placed before the Court indicates that

the policy was framed after collection of relevant data with

the object of ensuring equitable distribution of teachers and

improving the quality of education. There is nothing on record

to suggest that the policy has been formulated without

application of mind or for any extraneous purpose.

14.In the instructions/guidelines dated 2.8.2024 there is a

specific instruction as to how determine the surplus teachers,

procedure for determination of surplus teachers and the

concelling process. Clauses 6, 7 and 10 of the instructions/

guidelines dated 2.8.2024 read thus :

छः-

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकाचिन्हांकन

32

1.

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितिएकहीपरिसरमेंस्थितदोयादोसे

अधिकप्राथमिक

/

पूर्वमाध्यमिकविद्यालयोंकीदर्जसंख्याएवं

कार्यरतशिक्षकोंकीविद्यालयमेंपदस्थापनातिथिकेआधारपर

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीजानकारीसूचीबद्धकरेगी

,

साथहीसमिति

निकटकेकमदर्जसंख्यावालेविद्यालयोंकेअतिशेषशिक्षकोंकी

सूचीभीतैयारकरेगी।

(

संलग्न

:-

परिशिष्ठ

5)

2.

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितिद्वारादर्जसंख्याकेअनुपातमेंरिक्त

पदोंकीविद्यालयवारसूचीतैयारकीजायेगी।

3.

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितिद्वाराविषयवाररिक्तपदोंकी

विद्यालयवारसूचीतैयारकीजायेगी।

4.

अंतिमरूपसेतैयारसूचीकेआधारपरजिलास्तरीय समिति

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकारिक्तपदोंपरपदांकनकाउंसलिंगकेमाध्यमसे

करेगी।

5.

ईसंवर्गकेअतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीपदस्थापनाईसंवर्गकीशालाओं

मेंतथाटीसंवर्गकेअतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीपदस्थापनाटीसंवर्गकी

शालाओंमेंकीजायेगी।

6.

जिलास्तरपरपदस्थापनाकेपश्चात्रिक्तस्थान नहोनेकेकारण

कुछ अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीपदस्थापनाशेषरहजातीहैतोइनकीसूची

जिलासमितिद्वारासंभागीयसंयुक्तसंचालककोप्रेषितकिया

जायेगा।संभागीयसंयुक्तसंचालकद्वाराइसकापरीक्षणकर

काउंसलिंगकेमाध्यमसेपदस्थापनाकीकार्यवाहीकीजायेगी।

सहायकशिक्षककापदजिलाकैडरकाहै। अतःइनकीपदस्थापना

जिलेसेबाहरनहींहोगी। इसीतरहशिक्षककापदसंभागकैडरका

है। अतःइनकीपदस्थापनासंभागकेबाहरनहींहोगी। अतिशेष

व्याख्याताजिनकासमायोजनजिलाएवंसंभाग स्तरपरनहींहोपा

रहाहैउसकीसूचीसंभागीयसंयुक्तसंचालकद्वारासंचालक

. लोक

शिक्षणकोप्रेषितकीजायेगी।संचालक

,

लोकशिक्षणद्वाराशेष

अतिशेषव्याख्याताओंकापदांकनकाउंसलिंगकेमाध्यमसेकिया

जायेगा।

33

सात

:-

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकेचिन्हांकनहेतुप्रक्रियाः

-

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितियुक्तियुक्तकरणवालेविद्यालयों

केअतिशेषशिक्षकोंतथाअन्यविद्यालयोंकेअतिशेषशिक्षकोंके

चिन्हांकनहेतुनिम्नानुसारप्रक्रियाअपनायेगीः

-

A.

प्राथमिकशाला

-

01.

एकहीपरिसरमेंयुक्तियुक्तकरणवालेप्राथमिकविद्यालयोंके

छात्रोंकीसंख्याकेअनुपातमेंशिक्षकोंकीगणनाकीजायेगी।चूंकि

प्रधानपाठकशिक्षकीयपदहैअतःइसकीगणनाशिक्षकीयपदके

रूपमेंकीजायेगी।दोनोंविद्यालयोंकेशिक्षकोंकीसंख्याकोजोड़कर

शिक्षककीगणनाछात्रअनुपातमेंकीजायेगी।

02.

युक्तियुक्तकरणवालेप्राथमिकविद्यालयोंकीकुलदर्जसंख्या

यदि

60

याउससेकमहैवहांएकप्रधानपाठकएवंएकसहायक

शिक्षकरहेंगे।शेष अतिशेषकीश्रेणीमेंआयेंगे। यदिदोनोंप्राथमिक

शालाओंमेंप्रधानपाठकपदस्थहैतोजोप्रधानपाठककनिष्ठहोगा

उसेअतिशेषमानाजायेगातथाजहाँकोईभीप्रधानपाठकपदस्थनहीं

हैवहाँदोशिक्षकपदस्थरहेगें।

03.

जिनविद्यालयोंकीदर्जसंख्या

61

से

90

होगीवहांप्रधानपाठक

सहिततीनशिक्षक

, 91

से

120

मेंप्रधानपाठकसहितचारशिक्षक

,

121

से

150

तककीदर्जसंख्यामेंप्रधानपाठकसहित

5 शिक्षक

रहेंगे। इसीप्रकारआगामीवृद्धिपरशिक्षकपदस्थकियेजायेकी

कार्यवाहीकीजायेगी।

04.

शालामेंपदस्थ

/

कार्यभारग्रहणदिनांककेआधारपरकनिष्ठतम

सहायकशिक्षकअतिशेषमानेजायेंगे।

05.

समीपकीप्राथमिकशालाओंकेयुक्तियुक्तकरणकेफलस्वरूप

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीगणनाबिंदु क्र

. 01

से

04

अनुसारकीजायेगी।

06.

बिन्दु क्र

. 01

से

05

सेपृथकअन्यप्राथमिकविद्यालयजिनका

युक्तियुक्तकरणनहींकियागयाहै

,

परंतुवहांदर्जसंख्याकेअनुपात

मेंसहायकशिक्षकअतिशेषहै

,

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितिउनकीभी

पृथकसेसूचीतैयारकरेगी।

34

B.

पूर्वमाध्यमिकशाला

:-

01.

एकहीपरिसरकेयुक्तियुक्तकरणवालेपूर्वमाध्यमिक

शालाओंमेंछात्रसंख्याकेअनुपातमेंशिक्षकोंकीगणनाकीजायेगी।

प्रधानपाठककोभीशिक्षकीयपदकेरूपमेंजोड़करशिक्षकोंकी

गणनाकीजायेगी।

02.

युक्तियुक्तकरणवालेपूर्वमाध्यमिकशालाओंमेंजिनकीदर्ज

संख्या

105

याउससेकमहैवहांप्रधानपाठकएवंतीनशिक्षक

पदस्थरहेंगे। इसकेअतिरिक्तपदस्थशिक्षकअतिशेषमानेजायेंगे।

पूर्वमाध्यमिकशालामेंअतिशेषकीगणनाकरतेसमय प्रधानपाठक

सहितदोनोंविद्यालयोंमेंपदस्थशिक्षकोंकेविषयकोध्यानमेंरखा

जायेगा। यदिदोनोंविद्यालयोंमेंप्रधानपाठकपदस्थहैंतो

,

जोप्रधान

पाठककनिष्ठहैउसेअतिशेषमानाजायेगा।

03.

जिनविद्यालयोंकीदर्जसंख्या

106

से

140

हैवहांप्रधानपाठक

सहितपांचशिक्षकपदस्थहोंगे। इसीतरहप्रत्येक

35

छात्रसंख्यामें

एकअतिरिक्तशिक्षकदेयहोगा। अतिशेषकीगणनाकरतेसमय

विषयकोध्यानमेंरखाजायेगा।

04.

शालामेंपदस्थ

/

कार्यभारग्रहणदिनांककेआधारपरएकही

विषयकेदोशिक्षकमेंसेकनिष्ठतमकोअतिशेषमानाजायेगा।

05.

विषयकीगणनाकरतेसमयविषयशिक्षकों

(

प्रधानपाठक

सहित)

काचक्रानुक्रमनिम्नानुसारहोगाः

-

(i)

अंग्रेजी

(ii)

गणित

(iii)

कला

(iv)

विज्ञान

(v)

हिन्दी

(vi)

संस्कृत/उर्दू/वाणिज्य

06.

समीपस्थदोपूर्वमाध्यमिकशालाओंकेयुक्तियुक्तकरणमें

शिक्षकोंकेअतिशेषकीगणनाबिन्दु क्र

. 1

से

5

अनुसारकीजायेगी।

07.

बिन्दु क्र

. 01

से

06

केविद्यालयोंसेपृथकअन्यपूर्वमाध्यमिक

शालाएंजिनकायुक्तियुक्तकरणनहींकियागयाहै

,

परंतुदर्जसंख्या

केअनुपातमेंवहांअतिशेषशिक्षककार्यरतहैं

,

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय

समितिऐसेविद्यालयोंकेअतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीसूचीपृथकसेतैयार

करेगी।

35

C. हाई/

हायरसेकेण्डरीस्कूल

:-

1. हाई/

हायरसेकेण्डरीस्कूलमेंजहांदर्जसंख्याबहुतकमहै

, और

वहाँएकहीविषयकेदोव्याख्याताकार्यरतहै

(

प्रतिव्याख्याता

अध्यापन

04

कालखण्डसेकम

),

तोउनमेंसेकनिष्ठतमअतिशेष

होगा।

2.

हायरसेकेण्डरीस्कूलमेंस्वीकृतकिसीसंकायमेंएकभी

छात्र/

छात्राअध्ययनरत्नहींहै

,

तोऐसीस्थितिमेंसंबंधितसंकायके

व्याख्याताओंकोजिन स्कूलोंमेंउससंकायकेछात्रअध्ययनरत्है

,

वहांसमायोजितकियाजायेगा।

3. हाई/

हायरसेकेण्डरीस्कूलोंमेंस्वीकृतपदकेविरूद्ध एकसे

अधिकव्याख्याताकार्यरतहोनेपरदोनोंमेंसेजोकनिष्ठहोगाउसे

अतिशेषमानाजायेगा

4.

विकासखण्ड स्तरीय समितिउपरोक्तनिर्देशअनुसारअतिशेष

व्याख्याताओंकीसूचीएवंविद्यालयवारपदरिक्तताकीसूचीतैयार

करेगी।

xxx xxx xxx

दस

:-

काउंसलिंगकीप्रक्रिया

:-

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीपदस्थापनापारदर्शीकॉउंसलिंगकेमाध्यमसे

इसकीप्रक्रियानिम्नानुसारहोगी

:-

1.

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीपदस्थापनासर्वप्रथमशिक्षकविहिन

विद्यालयोंमेंकीजायेगीइसकेपश्चात्एकलशिक्षकीयविद्यालयोंमें

पदस्थापनाकीजायेगी।

2.

शिक्षकविहिनविद्यालयोंएवंएकलशिक्षकीयविद्यालयोंमें

पदस्थापनाकेपश्चात्जिनशालाओंमेंदर्जसंख्याअधिकहै

,

तोउनमें

आवश्यकतानुसारपदस्थापनाकीजायेगी।

3.

पूर्वमाध्यमिकविद्यालयोंतथाहाई स्कूल

/

हायरसेकेण्डरीमें

पदस्थापनाहेतुविषयकाध्यानरखाजायेगा।

4.

काउंसलिंगहेतुजितनेशिक्षकअतिशेषहैउतनीहीसंख्यामें

शिक्षकविहीन

,

एकलशिक्षकीय एवंअधिकदर्जसंख्यावाले

36

विद्यालयोंकोदर्शितकियाजाये।किन्तुयहांयहध्यानमेंरखाजायेगा

कि,

सभीशिक्षकविहीनविद्यालयोंएवंइसकेपश्चात्सभीएकल

शिक्षकीयविद्यालयोंकोअनिवार्यरूपसेदर्शितकियाजाये।

तद्नुपरांतआवश्यकतानुसारअधिकदर्जसंख्यावालेविद्यालयोंको

दर्शितकियाजाये।

5.

अतिशेषशिक्षकोंकीगणनाकरतेसमयदिव्यांगकोटेकेअन्तर्गत

नियुक्तशिक्षकयदिकनिष्ठतमहैतोउक्तदिव्यांगशिक्षककोछोड़कर

अन्यकनिष्ठशिक्षककीगणनाअतिशेषकेरूपमेंकीजायेगी।

6.

जोशिक्षकपरीविक्षाअवधिमेंहैं

,

उनकीगणनाअतिशेषकेरूपमें

नहींकीजायेगीक्योकि

,

परीविक्षाअवधिसमाप्तिकेपश्चात्हीउनकी

संस्थामेंपरिवर्तनसंभवहै।

7.

काउंसलिंगमेंरिक्तस्थानोंकाचयनकरनेकेलियेअतिशेष

शिक्षकोंकोवरीयताक्रममेंनीचेदियेक्रमअनुसारकाउंसलिंगहेतु

आमंत्रितकियाजायेः

-

1.

ऐसेशिक्षकजिनकीसेवानिवृत्ति

02

वर्षयाउससेकमहो।

2.

महिलाशिक्षिका।

(

वरिष्ठतासूचीकेआधारपर

)

3.

शासनसेमान्यताप्राप्तशिक्षकसंगठनकेपात्रपदाधिकारी।

4.

संकुलशैक्षिकसमन्वयक।

(

वरिष्ठतासूचीकेआधारपर

)

5.

अन्यशिक्षक।

(

वरिष्ठतासूचीकेआधारपर

)

15.Bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines, it is crystal clear

that while rationalizing teachers in schools situated in the

same campus, the teacher strength shall be determined with

reference to the aggregate number of students and even the

Head Master shall be counted as a teaching post. The object

of the policy is thus to ensure equitable deployment of

teachers so that schools suffering from acute shortage

receive adequate teaching staff. This Court, therefore, finds

37

no material to conclude that the policy violates Section 25 of

the Act, 2009.

16.Once the State Government, after considering the prevailing

factual position, has evolved a mechanism for identification

of surplus teachers and their deployment, the Court cannot

substitute its own methodology unless the criteria itself is

shown to be arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Merely

because certain teachers are identified as surplus does not

render the policy unconstitutional.

17.The contention founded upon the NEP, 2020 also deserves

rejection. The said policy emphasizes universal access to

quality education, equitable distribution of educational

resources and optimum utilization of teachers. Rational

deployment of available teaching personnel to remove

teacherless and single-teacher schools is consistent with

these objectives. No provision of the NEP having statutory

force has been shown which prohibits such administrative

redistribution.

18.The challenge founded upon the Recruitment Rules is also

liable to fail for want of proper pleadings. Except making

general assertions, the petitioners have neither identified any

specific provision of the Rules alleged to have been violated

nor demonstrated in what manner the impugned policy

infringes any statutory protection. In the absence of such

38

factual and legal foundation, the challenge cannot be

sustained.

19.The petitioners have further argued that the inclusion of

Head Masters and Cluster Academic Coordinators in the

rationalization exercise disturbs the cadre structure and

violates the Recruitment Rules.

20.The submission is bereft of particulars. No provision of the

Rules has been demonstrated to have been violated. The

petitioners have neither established abolition of any cadre

nor alteration of service conditions nor reduction of any

promotional avenue. The respondents have specifically

stated that the policy itself provides due priority and

protection to different categories while undertaking

rationalization. In absence of any factual foundation, the

challenge cannot be sustained.

21.The allegation that the respondents have arbitrarily identified

surplus teachers by ignoring seniority, counselling norms and

the principle of Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) is equally

unsupported by any concrete material.

22.This Court also finds substance in the objection raised by the

respondents that the petitioners have failed to establish

infringement of any vested legal right. Rational deployment of

teachers is an incidence of service. Unless such deployment

is shown to violate statutory provisions or constitutional

39

guarantees, judicial review remains limited.

23.Even assuming that implementation of the impugned policy

results in transfer or change of place of posting of certain

teachers, such consequence by itself cannot invalidate the

policy. Transfer and posting are matters falling within the

exclusive administrative domain of the employer and a

Government servant has no statutory or constitutional right to

remain posted at a particular place. Once the administration

has found concentration of teachers in certain schools and

shortage in others, the manner of rational deployment is

primarily for the executive to determine.

24.The Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Others v. Dr.

Yashwant Trimbak, (1996) 2 SCC 305 , has held that

matters relating to transfer and deployment of Government

servants primarily fall within the domain of the executive and

the Courts ought not to interfere unless the action is vitiated

by mala fides or violation of any statutory rule. Administrative

exigencies are matters for the employer to determine and not

for the Court to substitute its own opinion. The petitioners

have neither pleaded mala fides against any authority nor

demonstrated violation of any mandatory statutory provision.

25.Equally, the challenge to the policy itself cannot be

entertained merely because another view may also be

possible. The scope of judicial review over policy decisions is

40

extremely limited.

26.It is equally well settled that the Court cannot sit in judgment

over the wisdom or efficacy of an executive policy merely

because another view may also be possible. Unless the

policy is shown to be inconsistent with the parent statute or

violative of constitutional limitations, its desirability or

effectiveness lies outside the scope of judicial review.

27.The Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals and

Others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Others, (2007) 4 SCC

737, has reiterated that policy decisions of the Government

are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review unless they are

patently arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or violative of

constitutional or statutory provisions. Courts do not sit in

appeal over the wisdom of executive policy nor can they

substitute their own opinion for that of the Government in

matters involving administrative choices.

28.The rationalization policy under challenge has been framed

after Cabinet approval with the objective of ensuring

equitable distribution of teachers throughout the State.

Whether another model of rationalization would have been

more appropriate is a matter of administrative wisdom and

not of judicial review.

29.This Court also finds that the issue involved is no longer res

integra. The Divison Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh

41

Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine Chh

1137, while considering interference in matters involving

educational administration and deployment of teachers, has

held that formulation and implementation of such

administrative policies lie primarily within the executive

domain and the scope of judicial interference under Article

226 is confined only to cases where the policy is

demonstrated to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to

statutory provisions. The Court further observed that

administrative decisions taken in public interest for ensuring

better educational administration deserve judicial deference

unless shown to suffer from manifest illegality. The principles

laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the

facts of the present case.

30.The material placed before this Court further indicates that

the impugned rationalization exercise has been undertaken

to address the long-standing issue of teacher-less and

single-teacher schools in the State. Such an exercise is

directly relatable to the constitutional obligation of the State

flowing from Articles 21-A, 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution

of India, read with the provisions of the Act, 2009. Ensuring

equitable availability of teachers across Government schools

is unquestionably a matter of larger public interest.

31.In matters concerning educational administration, the Court

42

ought to exercise restraint where the Government is acting

bona fide with the object of ensuring adequate availability of

teachers in schools suffering from shortage. Questions

relating to the optimal deployment of teaching personnel are

essentially matters of educational policy and administrative

expertise.

32.The petitioners have failed to establish violation of Section 25

of the Act, 2009, Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the

Rules, or any other statutory or constitutional provision. They

have also failed to establish arbitrariness, mala fides or

infringement of any enforceable legal right.

33.The reliance placed by the learned counsels for the

petitioners upon the decision rendered by this Court in the

matter of Smt. Shitala Diwan (supra) would not be

applicable to the facts of the present cases because the

order dated 16.07.2024, which has been quoted in the

preceding para of this order, has duly been passed by order

and in the name of the Hon’ble the Governor of Chhattisgarh,

which categorically records that the Council of Ministers, in

its meeting dated 09.07.2024, approved the proposal relating

to rationalization of schools and teachers and authorized the

department to undertake all consequential actions. Thus, it

appears that the consequent impugned guidelines/ executive

action of the State Government shall be treated to be taken

43

by order and in the name of the Hon’ble Governor of

Chhattisgarh.

34.On a careful reading of the impugned policy and its broad

features, it is evident that the same has been framed with the

avowed object of improving the quality of education,

maintaining a proper teacher–pupil ratio, and ensuring an

equitable distribution of teachers across schools, particularly

by addressing the shortage of teachers in teacher-less and

single-teacher schools. The decision appears to have been

taken at the highest level of the Government after due

consideration of relevant data concerning the number of

teachers in the Department, the prevailing teacher–pupil

ratio, and the requirement of teachers in rural and other

under-served areas. Nothing in the policy suggests that it has

been framed without due application of mind or with any

oblique motive. On the contrary, it reflects a conscious

administrative effort to facilitate effective teaching in

Government and Panchayat schools so that students,

particularly those studying in Government institutions,

receive quality education in furtherance of the legislative

intent underlying the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The mere fact that, in a

given case, the number of teachers posted in a school is

either less than or exceeds the sanctioned set-up does not

44

render the policy vulnerable to challenge, as the sanctioned

strength is prescribed primarily for budgetary and

administrative purposes to determine the overall cadre

strength within the Department and does not confer any

vested or enforceable right upon an individual teacher or an

association to question the validity of the policy. Likewise,

even if the implementation of the policy incidentally results in

the transfer or posting of teachers, such a consequence

cannot be a ground to invalidate it, since matters relating to

transfer and posting of teachers fall squarely within the

exclusive administrative domain of the Government. The

impugned policy merely lays down broad administrative

guidelines without any statutory force and cannot be

construed as an executive instruction issued under Article

166 of the Constitution so as to invite judicial review of its

contents, save on the limited and well-settled grounds on

which administrative policies are amenable to judicial

scrutiny. In matters of administration, the Court ought to

exercise restraint and be slow in interfering where the

Government has acted bona fide in pursuit of the larger

public interest of ensuring adequate availability and rational

distribution of teachers in rural areas and in schools suffering

from an acute shortage of teaching staff.

45

35.In view of the settled principles governing judicial review of

executive policy decisions as laid down in Dr. Yashwant

Trimbak (supra), Gaurav Ashwin Jain (supra), and the

judgment of this Court in Vikram Singh Yadav (supra), this

Court finds no ground warranting interference under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

36.Consequently, the challenge, to the rationalization

instructions and all consequential actions taken thereunder,

is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

37.Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No order

as to costs.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge

Jyoti/ Gowri