1 2025:CGHC:37395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7486 of 2025 1 - Harish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dinaram Sahu, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar Gobra, Navapara, Block- Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Education Officer, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Block Education Officer, Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Smt. Rita Vaishnav Working As Govt. Middle School, Navapara, Block- Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Bharat Sahani, Working As Govt. Middle School, Navapara, Block- Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 30-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following relief(s) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.16 18:39:52 +0530 2 :- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/ quashing the impugned transfer order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts 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 who is a Teacher (L.B.) (Arts) and is posted at Govt. Middle School Paragaon, Abhanpur has been posted at Govt. Middle School Paraskol, Arang vide order dated 05-06-2025 issued by respondent No.4 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Teacher (Science), whereas he has been considered as Teacher (Arts) and has been declared surplus. There is complete violation of clause 7 (5) of the Rationalization Instructions and subject rotation has not been followed while declaring the petitioner surplus. The respondent No.6 and 7 have wrongly been considered in the school and to accommodate them the petitioner has been declared surplus, therefore, the impugned order of his posting may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that pursuant to the posting order dated 05-06-2025 the petitioner has joined at his place of posting on 20-06-2025. The petitioner still pursuing his representation which has been made before the authorities on 13-06- 2025 and therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, would submit that the posting order of the petitioner after declaring him surplus is strictly under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. The subject rotation has also been duly followed. As per the strength of the student in the school and subject in which the petitioner is teaching and available post in the school for 3 concerned subject, the petitioner has been declared surplus. He being junior to other subject teacher, has been declared surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School Paraskol. She would further submit that since the petitioner has already joined at his place of posting, i.e., Govt. Middle School Paraskol on 20-06- 2025 the order dated 05-06-2025 has been complied with and the same cannot be quashed after its execution. Therefore, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is a Teacher (L.B.) (Arts) has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School Paraskol. The claim of the petitioner that he is a Teacher (Science) and he has wrongly been considered as Teacher (Arts) are the factual issue which are to be considered by the authorities. Presently the petitioner has been considered as Teacher (Arts) and since he is junior to other teacher (Arts) in school as the petitioner has joined in the school on 17-10-2022 and as per the strength of the students and available post, he has been declared surplus. The petitioner could demonstrate any palpable infirmity that the Rationalization Instruction has been violated and the rotation of subject, strength of the school or subject of the teachers have wrongly been considered. Though, the petitioner made his representation on 13-06-2025, but after making the representation he has joined there at the place of his posting in compliance of the order dated 05-06-2025. 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 4 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 his 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 Aadil