1 2025:CGHC:36803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8170 of 2025 1 - Bhaiyya Lal Baiga S/o Ramkaran Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Devgarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh- 497778 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002. 2 - Commissioner, Directorate of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Block 1, Second Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002. 3 - Divisional Joint Director, School Education Sarguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgahr- 497001. 4 - District Rationalisation Committee, Through Its President, Collector, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Collectorate Office, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh- 497442. 5 - District Education Officer, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Office Of District Education Officer, Near Collectorate Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh- 497442. 6 - Block Education Officer, Block Bharatpur, Office of The Block Education Officer, Bharatpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh- 497778 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Order on Board 29-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging his posting order dated 03-06-2025 whereby the petitioner has been posted at Middle School Baharasi, Block Bharatpur under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02- 08-2024. He has claimed the following reliefs:- “A. To Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Rationalisation Committee; B. Direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at his original place of posting, i.e., Government Middle School, Devgarh, Block Bharatpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play; C. Declare that the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner surplus despite his seniority and subject specialization is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Rationalisation Guidelines dated 28.04.2025; D. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the petition, in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is a Teacher, presently posted at Middle School Devgarh, Block Bharatpur, has been posted at Middle School Baharasi, Block Bharatpur vide order dated 03-06-2025 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024. He would further submit that at Middle School Baharasi there is already four teachers for science subject and after joining of the petitioner there is five 3 teachers for science subject. At Middle School Devgarh two other teachers who are junior to the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been declared as surplus considering him for Arts subject. The subject rotation as provided in clause 7 B 05 under the Rationalization Instructions have not been followed by the authorities. The petitioner is a teacher for science subject which would come before Hindi and he could not be declared surplus there as he is the senior most teacher for the science subject in the school. He would further submit that the petitioner has moved his representation to the respondent No.3 on 25-06-2025, but the same has not been considered till date, though the petitioner has joined at his place of posting at Middle School Baharasi on 06-06-2025. Therefore, the impugned order of posting of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and on instructions submits that the petitioner is a teacher at Middle school Devgarh. The two teachers, namely, Pratima Toppo and Smt. Uma Dhruve were on probation and teach science subject and as per clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions, they could not be declared surplus at Middle School Devgarh. Since the petitioner has already joined at his place of posting on 06-06-2025, therefore, the impugned order has already been complied with. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as his order of posting is under strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions and he has already joined at his place of posting. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is a teacher at Middle School Devgarh has been posted at Middle School Baharasi under the Rationalization Instructions. His claim is that he is senior teacher in the school than other teachers of science subject, however, the other teachers of science subject are on probation who cannot 4 be posted at any other school under the Rationalization as provided under clause 10.6 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-024. From the documents (Annexure-P/5) it transpires that the strength of the Devgarh school is 117 and as per clause 7 B 03, total five teachers are required including the Head Master. The rotation as per their subject has also provided in clause 7 B 05 of the Rationalization Instructions. Since two teachers are already there on probation, they cannot be declared surplus, therefore, out of six teachers in Arts, Science and Hindi subject, the petitioner has been declared surplus as the other teachers available in the school cannot be declared surplus and thus, the petitioner has been declared surplus and has been posted at Middle School Baharasi. In compliance of the order dated 03-06-2025 the petitioner has already joined at Middle School Baharasi on 06-06-2025. 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.” 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 5 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