Nem Prakash Lahrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The Director Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Joint Director Education Department GPM, District-GPM (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Collector GPM District- GPM (C.G.)

¶14

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

¶15

6 - The Division Level Rationalization Representation Redressal Committee Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr.	Harish Lall, Advocate
For State/Respondents	: Ms.	Sakshi Bajpai, PL

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.20 18:11:01 +0530

¶21

17/07/2026

¶22

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶23

2 / 5

¶24

following reliefs:

¶25

10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the concerned petitioner case from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶26

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside/ quash the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 and direct the respondent authorities to conduct the counseling of the petitioner again with the due process of law by considering the vacant schools with the commerce stream in the District – GPM (C.G.).

¶27

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide appointment to the petitioner in any of the vacant school in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Marwahi, District – GPM (C.G.)

¶28

10.4 That, the cost of the petition may also be given to the petitioner by the respondent authorities.

¶29

10.5 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deemd fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while serving as Lecturer (L.B.) (Commerce), was declared a surplus

¶31

3 / 5

¶32

teacher under the State Rationalization Policy and was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Gharghora, District Raigarh. It is contended that the counseling process was conducted in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner, as several available vacancies were concealed and only limited vacancies were displayed, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to exercise his option. The petitioner was transferred without being afforded an opportunity of hearing or to file objections, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would next submit that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 5598 of 2025, the petitioner submitted representations before the competent authorities; however, the same were rejected mechanically without proper consideration of his grievances. He would further submit that a vacant post of Lecturer (Commerce) was available at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Marwahi, District GPM, but the said vacancy was neither disclosed during counseling nor considered while deciding the petitioner's representations. It is contended that the impugned action is contrary to the Rationalization Policy, which mandates that a Lecturer should be posted against an available vacancy where the concerned subject is operational. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the respondents be directed to post the petitioner against an appropriate available vacancy in accordance with the Rationalization Policy.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed in

¶34

4 / 5

¶35

WA No.674 of 2025 (Shashi Shrivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

¶36

Others ) , wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

¶37

“8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the main grievance of the appellant is that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry), but she has been considered as Lecturer (Science) and has been declared surplus. It is grievance of the appellant that she was not provided any opportunity to participate in the counselling on the ground that she is the Lecturer (Chemistry) and there are no surplus Lecturers in the Chemistry subject, and the Respondent No. 5 has been allotted to Ambikapur School. From perusal of the order dated 11.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), it transpires that the appellant and one Snehlata Pathak, were the Lecturers (Chemistry) and they have been adjusted against the vacant post of Lecturer (Biology) and (Maths), for the purposes of their salary. The District Level list of Lecturers shows only two categories, i.e. (1) Biology and (2) Science. In the District Level list of surplus Lecturers, the appellant is considered as the Lecturer (Science), which includes the Chemistry subject as subject of Science. There was no vacant post available for Lecturer (Chemistry/ Science) and therefore, the name of appellant is placed in the State Level counselling and she has been allotted the Bhopalpatnam school. 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 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

¶38

5 / 5

¶39

instance of the employer in the public interest and administrative exigency. 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.

¶40

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

¶42

Learned State counsel further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 674 of 2025, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶43

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WA No. 674 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ appeal.

¶44

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WA No. 674 of 2025 .

¶45

SD/- ( Bibhu Datta Guru ) JUDGE

¶46

ashu

Nem Prakash Lahrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nem Prakash Lahrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Banchhor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deobansh Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R.P. Kesharwani Vs Siddharth Komal Pradeshi, Secretary

Anil Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Biswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagannath Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh