1 2025:CGHC:35939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7110 of 2023 1 - Priyanka Sharma W/o - Shri Deepak Kumar Mishra Aged About 32 Years R/o - House No. - 246, Ward No. - 11, Near Railway Station, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District – Raipur. 2 - The Under Secretay Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.). 4 - District Education Officer, Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Blok Education Officer Pathalgaon, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (Jashpur). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Farsatoli, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 7 - Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Bharritola-36, Block Doundi, District - Balod (C.G.). 8 - Dharmendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Uttam Kumar Soni Aged About 34 Years Working As Guest Teacher (Physics) At Government Higher Secondary School Bharritola - 36, Block Doundi, District - Balod (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to set aside theimpugned order dated 29.08.2023issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to indicate a place of posting for 3 the petitioner as the impugned order does not mention the same. 10.4That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain continuity of pay/salary to the petitioner. 10.5That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners;” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 30.09.2022 the petitioner was transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Farsatoli Block Pathalgaon District- Jashpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Bharritola, Block Doundi, District-Balod. Pursuant to such transfer order, the petitioner joined his place of transfer on 17.12.2022 and her salary was being drawn from the transferred place posting. It is contended that thereby the transfer order was executed. Thereafter, the transfer of the petitioner has been canceled by order dated 29.08.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the transfer order has been executed, the same can only be modified by another transfer order and the earlier transfer order cannot be canceled. He placed his reliance in the judgment passed by this Court in Kaushal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anr. (WPS No.3544 of 2017, decided on 30.10.2017) and Prakash Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (WPS No.7376 of 2019, decided on 4 17.09.2019). 4. This Court in the case of Kaushal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anr. (WPS No.3544 of 2017, decided on 30.10.2017) this Court has observed thus:- 3) This Court, in the identical matters i.e. Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1 Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and Khubchand Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others3 observed that once the transfer order is executed, the same cannot be cancelled. It was further observed that the employer is always at liberty to pass an order of transfer and posting the employee keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest. 4) The Division Bench of this Court in Tarun Kanungo v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others4, held thus : “3. 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 : 1 WPS No. 5012 of 2009, decided on 09.03.2010 2 WPS No. 855 of 2012, decided on 27.2.2012 3 WPS No. 1054 of 2012, decided on 2.3.2012 4 WA No. 248 of 2015, decided on 15.5.2015 5 '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.' 5) In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to pass fresh order depending upon the administrative exigency, in accordance with the transfer policy. 5. Since the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. The observation made in the paras 3, 4 & 5 of the WPS No.3544 of 2017 shall also govern the case of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 is quashed. However, the liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to pass afresh order depending upon the administrative exigency, in accordance with the transfer policy. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat