1 2025:CGHC:39889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8155 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sheetal Singh Chouhan W/o Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Teacher (Lb) (Maths), Government Middle School Murmunda Block Dhamdha Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director, Public Instruction Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Divisional Joint Director, Public Instruction, Division Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Collector/ President District Level Rationalization Committee Durg Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The District Education Officer Durg District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 6 - The Block Education Officer, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Smt. Nirupa Sahu W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 46 Years Head Mistress At Government Middle School Murmunda Block Dhamdha Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.16 09:40:40 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the memo dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure-P/1), order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure- P/12) and order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure-P/15) and prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P- 1)along with the list of excess teachers; issue by the respondent no. 5 and the order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent no. 3 in respect of petitioner and the order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the respondent no. 5; being illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue writ of Mandamus commanding upon respondents no. 1 to 6 and direct them to not declare the petitioner as excess teacher in the Government Middle School Ruabandha Distt. Durg (CG) by exempting her, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, Any other order or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the Teacher (Maths) was posted at Govt. Middle School, Murmunda, Dist- Durg, has been posted to Govt. Girls Middle School, Saja, Dist- Bemetara vide order dated 07.06.2025 under the rationalization 3 instructions dated 02.08.2024. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 07.06.2025 by filing WPS No. 4734/2025 which was disposed of on 17.06.2025 directing the petitioner to move her fresh representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee and the said committee shall decide the representation of the petition within the stipulated time frame. Pursuant to the order dated 17.06.2025, the petitioner made her representation to the District Level Rationalization Committee and appeared before the said committee on 27.06.2025 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her representation has been rejected on 01.07.2025 by the said committee. He would further submit that there is violation of Clause-7 B(i) of the rationalization instructions dated 02.08.2024 and her junior teacher was remain posted at the same place whereas the petitioner has been declared surplus. The vacant sanction post of teacher (Maths) is available in the nearby schools at Durg District and she can be posted there. Her husband is also posted at Block - Dhamdha as Assistant Teacher and as per the husband and wife policy, she may also be posted at Dist- Durg. He would fairly submit that though the petitioner had joined at her place of posting i.e. Govt. Girls Middle School, Saja, Dist- Bemetara, yet she is challenging the impugned orders which are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, would submit that the strength of the students at Govt. Middle School, Murmunda was 86 and as per the Clause- 7 B of the Rationalization Instruction, only 04 teachers were required including Head Master in the school, but 6 teachers were working there. As per the subject rotation provided under Clause- 7B(v) of the Rationalization Instruction, 02 teachers have been declared surplus including the 4 petitioner. There were 03 teachers (Maths) including the Head Master and since, the Head Master cannot be posted to other place, the other two teachers (Maths) have been declared surplus as per the subject rotation. The rationalization of the petitioner is in accordance with the rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, therefore, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned orders. The order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Level Rationalization Committee is also in accordance with the Rationalization Instructions and since, the petitioner has already joined at her place of posting, the writ petition filed by the petitioner 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, who is the Teacher (Maths) was posted at Govt. Middle School, Murmunda, Dist- Durg and she has been posted by the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 to Govt. Girls Middle School, Saja, Dist- Bemetara under the rationalization instruction. The claim of the petitioner is that the other teacher who are junior to her have not been declared surplus in the school as appears to be misconceived. The petitioner is a Teacher (Maths), the Head Master of the School Smt. Nirupa Sahu is also the Teacher (Maths) and another teacher Smt. Urmila Verma is also the Teacher (Maths). Since, the Head Master of the school cannot be disturbed, as per the subject rotation provided in Clause- 7 B(v), the other two teachers (Maths) including the petitioner have been declared surplus as the other teachers are from other subjects. The process adopted by the authorities for rationalization of the teachers appears to be correct and in accordance with the rationalization instruction dated 02.08.2024. Further, the petitioner had 5 already joined at her place of posting on 09.07.2025, the petitioner could not demonstrate the palpable infirmities or arbitrariness in the impugned orders which warrants interference by this Court. 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 6 force. Thereafter, no substantive part remains to be stayed or rescinded and any order to that effect is redundant.”" 8. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident of service; the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in the public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of the transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 9. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika