1 2025:CGHC:33272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6979 of 2025 1 - Nalini Kant Sahu D/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 47 Years Currently Posted At Government Middle School Jatadand, Block Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Public Instructions (Dpi) Through Its Director, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher (LB) (Industries), has been transferred VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.29 17:29:58 +0530 2 from the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ajgarbahar, Block Korba to Govt. Middle School, Jatadand, Block Korba under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and he prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 17/06/2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Korba, District- Korba (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner her original place of posting which is Government Higher Secondary School, Ajgarbahar. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/ reliefs 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 presently posted a Teacher (LB) (Industries) and in Korba district, only one post of Teacher (Industries) is running at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ajgarbahar. There is no other sanctioned post of Teacher (Industries) is available, yet the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been transferred, therefore, the rationalization and transfer of the petitioner is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher (LB) (T-cadre). After transferring the petitioner on 17.06.2025, he has joined at his transferred place of posting on 19.06.2025, and 3 therefore, the transfer order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) has already been complied with and the petitioner has not challenged after its compliance. He would also submit that the present writ petition has been filed after joining of the petitioner on 19.06.2025, therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From the documents annexed with the petition, though the petitioner has claimed that he is posted as Teacher (LB) (Industries) and there is no post of Teacher (LB) (Industries) is available at Govt. Middle School, Jatadand, but it is for the authorities concerned to place the teacher at the required school, where the posts are vacant under the Rationalization Instructions. He joined at Govt. Middle School, Jatadand on 19.06.2025 in compliance of the order dated 17.06.2025. 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.” 4 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 ved