1 / 5 2025:CGHC:29772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6833 of 2025 1 - Ganesh Ram Kerketa S/o T.R. Kerketa Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School, Durpa, Block Bamhanidih District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhu Lal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 11:34:07 +0530 2 / 5 02/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher (Arts), has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Durpa, Block Bamhnidih to Govt. Middle School, Barampur, Block Lormi under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates 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 declare the Merger and Rationalization Policy/ Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside the impugned posting order transfer (Annexure-P/2) of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on his respective place of their posting as mentioned in the cause title of the case. 10.4 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 deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 3 / 5 presently posted a Teacher (Arts) at Govt. Middle School, Durpa, Block Bamhnidih. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Barampur. He is a Teacher (Hindi), whereas he has been considered as Teacher (Arts) and has been declared surplus at Govt. Middle School, Durpa against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. All the vacant schools of Block Durpa have not been displayed at the time of counseling and he has been forced to go there at Govt. Middle School, Barampur. Under the compulsion, he joined there at Govt. Middle School, Barampur and has made a representation on 19.06.2025 to the respondent No.4 for reconsidering the order of his posting, but his representation has not been considered, and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Middle School, Durpa. He was declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Barampur, Block Lormi. As per the submission of the petitioner himself that he has joined at Govt. Middle School, Barampur, yet he has challenged the order dated 07.06.2025, which has already been executed. After joining at the place of posting, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and in between that period, he remained working at his place of posting. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4 / 5 5. From the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/5) and from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined at his place of posting and he has made representation on 19.06.2025. He is claiming that he is a Teacher (Hindi), but he has been considered as a Teacher (Arts), but there is no material produced by him, which could demonstrate that he is a Teacher (Hindi). The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate from any document that all the vacant schools in the block have not been displayed at the time of counseling. The relevant facts in the writ petition is that he has already joined there at his place of posting i.e. Govt. Middle School, Barampur, Block Lormi. 6. In the matter of “U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank” reported in 2023 INSC 1077, in para 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “10. A person aggrieved by the order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with the same. If the workman had any grievance, he could have availed of his remedy available against the same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to comply with the same. Failure to avail of any remedy also would mean that he had accepted the order and was duty-bound to comply with the same. At a later stage, he could 4 not take a plea that the order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance.” 7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “Tarun Kanungo vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others” order dated 5 / 5 15.05.2015 passed in WA No. 248/2015 has held in para 3 that: “The question for cancellation of an order not in existence does not arise. The only option available to the authorities was to issue any fresh orders. We may appropriately refer to two Bench decisions in 2000 (2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. The State of Bihar) and 2000 (3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam Siddique v. The State of Bihar) observing as follows: "12. Now it is a settled law that once an order of transfer issued and acted upon, it is spent its force. Thereafter, no substantive part remains to be stayed or rescinded and any order to that effect is redundant.”" 8. From the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner could not demonstrate any violation of the conditions of the said instructions issued by the State Government for rationalization of the teacher, merely making the representation does not entitle the petitioner to be remained there, particularly when he has already joined there at his place of posting. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any scope of interference in the petition and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved