1 2025:CGHC:30129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6986 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ruchika Jaiswal W/o Shri Bharat Lal Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years Lecturer- L.B. (Biology), T Category, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School- Udhnapur, Block- Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh- Chirimiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-3, 1st Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director (Education) Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Collector Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur, (Manendragarh), District- Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur, (Manendragarh), District- Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 03-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 03.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Lecturer has been transferred from Govt. Girls Higher Secondary Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 School Chirmiri, Block Khadgawan, District Manendragar-Chirmiri- Bharatpur to Govt. Higher Secondary School Udhnapur, Block Khadgawan, District Manendragar-Chirmiri-Bharatpur under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and quash the impugned order dated-03.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) and also quash the list dated-30.05.2025 (Annexure- P/4, in respect of petitioner), issued by Respondent No.5. 10.2 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated-03.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1), till the pendency of the instant petition. 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to consider the applications dated-03.06.2025 as per rationalization policy and setup for the schools and teachers as per the priority/preference of the subjects. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no one has been declared as excess/surplus in the list/details/letter dated 17.05.2025 sent by Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School-Chirmiri, and the petitioner is also posted against sanctioned and vacant post, bur the petitioner has been declared excess/surplus in the list dated 3 30.05.2025 issued by respondent No.5 which is contrary to the details submitted by the Principal. The petitioner’s transfer on earlier occasion was made on the ground that her husband was also posted as Lecturrer at nearby school and now by the impugned order she have been posted 40 Km. away from the present place of posting, however, the husband of the petitioner is posted on the same place and now it is difficult to the petitioner to manage her family and work. The petitioner has wrongly been declared as excess/surplus and transferred. The services of the petitioner is required at her earlier place of posting as the Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Chirmiri has also requested that the service of the petitioner is required in the school. The petitioner is a lady and suffering from critical medical problem as due to an accident she received grievous injury in her leg and after major operation she unable to move here to there and she suffering from swelling problems in her leg and therefore, it would be difficult to the petitioner to perform her duties at new place of posting to the best of her sincerity and ability. Further, the authorities have not considered that no complaint has been received against the petitioner in the school from where she has been transferred. He would further submit that the petitioner has joined at her transferred place of posting on 06.06.2025 and prior to filing of the present petition she approached the authorities for redressal of her grievance and when no relief was given to her by the authority concerned, she has filed the present petition, therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Girls 4 Higher Secondary School Chirmiri, Block Khadgawan, District Manendragar-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. She was declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Govt. Higher Secondary School Udhnapur, Block Khadgawan, District Manendragar-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. The petitioner has challenged her transfer order dated 03.06.2025, which has already been executed and she has joined at her transferred place of posting. After joining at the transferred place of posting, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and in between that period, she remained working at her transferred place of posting. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is a Lecturer has been transferred from Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Chirmiri to Govt. Higher Secondary School Udhnapur, vide transfer order dated 03.06.2025 and in pursuance of the order dated 03.06.2025 she has already joined at her transferred place of posting. 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 5 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 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 she has already joined at her transferred 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 Aadil