1 2025:CGHC:34127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7770 of 2025 1 - Kranti Kumar Tiwari S/o Hanuman Prasad Tiwari Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Katgi, Block Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 18-07-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the Rationalization Policy/Guideline/Instructions dated 02-08-2024 as well as transfer order dated 02.06.2025 whereby the petitioner, who is Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Lecturer (L.B.) has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School Katgi, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara to Govt. High School Turama, Block Baloda Bazar under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Merger and Rationalization Policy/Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside the impugned posting order/ transfer (Annexure-P/2) of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the place of his posting as mentioned in the cause title of the case. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has wrongly been declared as excess/surplus and transferred. No proper and transparent process has been followed in the counseling. There is no complaint against the petitioner in the school from where he has been transferred. He would further submit that the petitioner has joined 3 at his transferred place of posting on 15.06.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School Katgi, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, he was declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Govt. High School Turama, Block Baloda Bazar. The petitioner has challenged his transfer order dated 02.06.2025, which has already been executed and he has joined at her transferred place of posting. After joining at the transferred place of posting, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and in between that period, he remained working at his transferred place of posting. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is a Lecturer has been transferred from Govt. Higher Secondary School Katgi, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara to Govt. High School Turama, Block Baloda Bazar vide transfer order dated 02.06.2025 and in pursuance of the order dated 02.06.2025 he has already joined at his 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 4 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 his transferred place of posting. 9. So far as challenge to the Rationalization Instructions dated 5 02.08.2024 is concerned, since no argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case in this regard, the same has not been considered in the present case and it is left open to the petitioner to raise the same at any later stage. 10. 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