1 2025:CGHC:31540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7460 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Roopsen Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village And Post Sanora Block Narharpur District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division Bastar, Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer And Secretary District Rationalization Samiti District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gourav Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging her transfer order dated 09.06.2025, whereby she has been transferred from Government ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 19:48:20 +0530 2 Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur District- North Baster Kanker to High School, Rajpur, District- Baster and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition: 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting- aside/quashing the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to adjust/post the petitioner in the school where the post of Lecturer is lying vacant under the District Kanker. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the fact and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Lecturer (History) and is posted at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur, District Kanker. He has been declared surplus teacher and has been transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 09.06.2025 to High School, Rajpur, District Baster. He had appeared in the counseling on 04.06.2025 but for want of any vacant post in history/political science subject he has to appear in the Divisional level counseling on 09.06.2025 at Jagdalpur and thereafter he had been transferred to District- Baster. The in-charge Principal(Lecturer History) of Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur is promoted on 30.04.2025. Since the petitioner was also posted as Lecturer (History) and the post is vacant after his promotion, therefore, he claimed to be remained there at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur for which he moved his representation to the respondent No.3 on 01.07.2025. He would also submits that on 16.06.2025 he already made his representation to the respondent No.4 but the same has not been considered till date. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting on 3 12.06.2025 and since there is vacant post available at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Abhanpur for Lecturer (History), he may be considered to be remained there at Abhanpur and his transfer order may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that since the petitioner has already joined on 12.06.2025 at his transferred place of posting admitting the terms and conditions of the transfer order and the rationalization instructions, now he cannot challenge his transfer order as the same has already been executed. He would also submits that merely filing the representation to the authority concerned does not entitle him to be remained there at Abhanpur, therefore, there is no merit in the 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 has challenged his transfer order dated 09.06.2025 which has already been executed and he has joined at her transferred place of posting on 12.06.2025. After joining at the transferred place of posting, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 03.07.2025 and in between that period he remained working 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 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 he 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 Alok