1 2025:CGHC:35005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8061 of 2025 1 - Umendra Kumar Kaushik S/o Kanwal Singh Kaushik Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt Middle School Boys Hostel Kodekasa Block Dondilohara District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Balod (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Balod District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Dondi Lohara District Balod (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 11:25:22 +0530 2 22/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 02.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Teacher has been transferred from Kariyatola, Block Dondilohara to Kodekasa, Block Dondilohara under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published. At the time of considering the Rationalization Instructions, the strength of the Teachers subject-wise have not been considered. Even at the time of counseling, no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner and only a day before the date of counseling, the list of surplus Teachers and schools have been published. The setup of the school as per the setup fixed in the year 2008 has also not been considered and the authorities are acted in most arbitrary manner while considering the rationalization of the Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions, dated 02.08.2024. He would further submit that, though the petitioner has joined at his/her transferred place of posting, he/she made his/her representation raising his/her grievances, but his/her representation has not been considered till date, therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at present place 3 of posting. He/she was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred. 4. The petitioner has challenged his/her transfer order, which has already been executed and he/she has joined at his/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/she remained working at his/her transferred place of posting. 5. 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.” 6. 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 4 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.”" 7. 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/she has already joined at his/her transferred place of posting. 8. 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 ved