1 2025:CGHC:36333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7757 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kusumlata Nag Wd/ Late Shri Laxman Singh Nag Aged About 57 Years Occupation Lecturer (L.B.) (T) (Hindi) Presently Working At Govt. Higher Secondary School Badeabamabal Block Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Raipur Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Cum District Level Chairman Uktiuktkaran Samiti Bastar, Jagdalpur District - Bastar, (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Damini Kureti Lecturer (Hindi) Govt. Higher Secondary School Borpadar, Block Bakawand District- Bastar (C.G.) (Going To Retire On 30-09-2025 ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.31 11:26:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order of her posting dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (T-cadre), has been posted from Higher Secondary School, Borpadar to Higher Secondary School, Badeabamabal under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertains to case of the petitioner, in original from the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.4, as also, the record pertains to counseling. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order Bearing No. No 7082/Est-3/U.U./2025, Jagdalpur, dated 06.06.2025 (Ann.-P/1) And declaring the petitioner as Atishesh vide order dated 02.06.2025 (Ann.-P/2), with order dated 05.06.2025 (Ann.-P/6) with respect to the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to Respondent No.4 to reconsider the status of Atishesh at Government Higher Secondary School Borpadar, Block-Bakawand, District-Bastar (C.G)/AND/OR, in the alternative restore the order Ann.-P/5 dated 04.06.2025 and allow the petitioner to join at Government Higher Secondary School Nagarnar, Block-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G). 10.4 That, in the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 to consider the para 9.7 of the Petition for further posting. 3 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3 & 4 in prefixing of period of relieving/joining as per their own wish, therefore this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the Ex-Parte relieving, if any, by virtue of above clause.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is a Lecturer (T-cadre) and presently posted at Higher Secondary School, Borpadar, Block Bakawand. She has been declared surplus showing her posting is for Hindi subject and has been posted at Higher Secondary School, Nagarnar, Block Jagdalpur vide order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P/5) under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the counseling and posting of the Lecturers dated 04.06.2025 is cancelled vide order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/6) and the Lecturers were again called for counseling on 06.06.2025, and thereafter, another order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) has been issued, by which the petitioner has been posted at Higher Secondary School, Badeabamabal, Block Bastar. He would further submit that though the petitioner is not disputing that she was surplus at Higher Secondary School, Borpadar, but she is raising grievance that at the time of counseling, the entire school, in which vacant sanctioned posts are available, have not been displayed, by which she is deprived to opt the convenient school of nearby places. The petitioner is a lady and has been posted about 70 KMs away from the present place of posting, which is very difficult for her to carry out her duties. He would further submit that on 04.06.2025, on her option, she was posted at Govt. 4 Higher Secondary School, Nagarnar, but without any reason, the entire process of counseling and posting of the Lecturers have been cancelled, and another order has been issued against the option of the petitioner. He would also submit that though the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging her posting order, but she has joined there at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Badeabamabal during the pendency of present writ petition. She made her representation on 15.07.2025, which has been filed on 22.07.2025 as Annexure P/9, but till date the same has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order of her posting may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was earlier posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Nagarnar as she had opted for the same. Since certain irregularities have been found in the Rationalization process, the process of counseling held on 04.06.2025 and respective posting orders including the posting order of the petitioner have been cancelled. Thereafter, again counseling was held on 06.06.2025 and the petitioner is posted at Higher Secondary School, Badeabamabal. Though the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 06.06.2025, but she has already joined at her place of posting and the order dated 06.06.2025 has been complied with, therefore, the same cannot be quashed. It is for the authorities concerned to consider her difficulties and to post at any other place subject to availability of vacant sanctioned post, for which she has already made a representation on 15.07.2025, therefore, no 5 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. 5. The petitioner has claimed that she is posted as Lecturer (T-cadre) and her posting order dated 06.06.2025 issued against her option on 04.06.2025 at the time of counseling and without any reason the earlier order of her posting has been cancelled and she has been posted about 70 KMs away from the present place of posting. From perusal of the document dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/6), it transpires that due to unavoidable reason, the counseling held on 04.06.2025 with respect to Rationalization of the Lecturers and consequent posting orders have been cancelled. It is not that only the posting order of the petitioner is cancelled, but the entire counseling process held on 04.06.2025 and consequent posting orders have been cancelled and a new date for counseling of 06.06.2025 was fixed. The said action of the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide, but it is for a fair process of Rationalization. The petitioner has not specifically challenged that she is not surplus at Higher Secondary School, Borpadar, but she is challenging her place of posting i.e. far away from her present place of posting. From perusal of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, this Court does not find any clause that Lecturers/Teachers are to be posted within any particular distance. It is for the authorities concerned to post the Lecturers at the suitable place, where their services are required, for which the Rationalization Instructions are issued. Further, as per the 6 submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already joined at her place of posting i.e. Higher Secondary School, Badeabamabal. 6. 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.” 7. 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 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. 7 Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and 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]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 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