1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6917 of 2025 1 - Tankeshwar Lal Sinha S/o Shri Chaman Lal Sinha Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government High School, Gadaghat, Block Deobhog, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instructions (DPI) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Education Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate. For State : Shri SP Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 11.07. 202 5 1. Challenge in this petition is the order of transfer dated 02.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School Belar, Block Phingeshwar to Govt. High School, Gadaghat, Block Deobhog, District Gariyaband under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of transfer has been passed without reflecting/disclosing the sanctioned 2 posts of Lecture at the school where the petitioner was posted and as such he was deprived of his chance to remain posted at the same place because some posts were still vacant in the said school. Thus, the guidelines issued by the State Govt. has not been properly compiled with while declaring the petitioner surplus. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside/quashed. 3. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that the petitioner was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been rightly transferred to other place. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 4. On a specific query being made to the counsel for the petitioner, he fairly admits that in compliance of the said transfer order, the petitioner has already joined his duties at transferred place of posting and since then performing his/her duties at transferred place. 5. 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 (See-U.P. Singh Versus Punjab National Bank” reported in 2023 INSC 1077). Further, it is also 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. 6. Even otherwise, transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is 3 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, 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]. 7. In view of aforesaid legal proposition of law this court is of the opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder