1 2025:CGHC:35792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7901 of 2025 1 - Mrs Amita Bangde W/o Late Sachin Bangde Aged About 44 Years R/o House No.7/k Near Danteshwari School Ramaiyya Ward No.17 Hikmipara Jagdalpur Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instrucations First Floor C-Block Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Collector District Kondagoan (C.G.) And Also Serving As The President Of District Level Rationalization Committee, Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer District Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Block Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 24/07/2025 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.23 10:38:15 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 08.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1), order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is a Teacher (T-Cadre) was posted at Middle School, Chepdaguda, Block- Jagdalpur has been transferred to Middle School, Pathri, Block- Bakawand and she has been relieved on 16.06.2025. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- 10.1. Issue a writ of certiorary or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside transfer order dated 08.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) relieving order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2)\ 10.2. The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and give her posting at any other government school which is situated at a place which may be convenient to reach looking to the personal difficulties of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Teacher(T-Cadre) and presently posted at Middle School, Chepdaguda Block- Jagdalpur. By the order dated 08.06.2025, she has been posted to Middle School, Pathri, Block- Bakawand under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024. In compliance of the order dated 08.06.2025, she has been relieved from Middle School, Chepdaguda. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly submit that the petitioner had joined at Middle School, Pathri, Block- Bakawand on 16.06.2025 in compliance of the order dated 18.06.2025. He would 3 further submit that the petitioner was initially posted on 20.06.2005 in the post of Siksha Karmi grade-III and she was promoted on the post of Teacher, Panchayat vide order dated 21.06.2017. By the order dated 11.01.2019, the petitioner was transferred to Middle School, Chepdaguda, Block- Jadgalpur and since then she was working there. She has been declared surplus under the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been posted to Middle School, Pathri. In the Middle School, Chepdaguda, she joined in the year 2019 whereas the teacher who was promoted form the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2022, have not been declared surplus but the petitioner has been declared surplus. The petitioner is a widowed lady having numerous family responsibilities including her minor children. Since the seniority of the petitioner in the school have not been considered the impugned order of her posting under the garb of rationalization is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, would submit that the petitioner had joined in the school in the year 2019. She claimed that the other teachers who were promoted on the post of teacher in the year 2022, are juniors, however, they are working in the school prior to the petitioner and they have been promoted on the post of teacher in the year 2022, therefore, their date of joining in the school are prior to the date of joining of the petitioner in the school and as per Clause 7(B)(iv) of the rationalization instructions, the petitioner being a junior, has been declared surplus and has been posted. There may be some personal difficulty to the petitioner, it cannot be a ground to quash the order of her posting, therefore, there 4 is no ground in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is the Teacher (T- Cadre) and posted at Middle School, Chepdaguda has been posted at Middle School, Pathri by the impugned order dated 08.06.2025. The claim of the petitioner is that the other teachers in the Chepdaguda school has been promoted in the year 2022 on the post of teacher and therefore, they may be considered as junior to the petitioner because the petitioner had joined in the school in the year 2019. Though, the other teacher may be promoted in the year 2022, however, their joining in the school as Assistant Teacher would be prior to the dated of joining of the petitioner in the school. The petitioner could not produce any specific date as to on which date the other teachers of the schools have joined, so that their seniority as per their date of joining could be determined. Further the fact that the petitioner had joined at the place of her posting on 16.06.2025 in compliance of the order dated 08.06.2025 and the order impugned has already been complied with. 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. 5 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 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. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief 6 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. 9. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika