1 2025:CGHC:35002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8264 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vandana Pathak W/o Shri Atul Pathak Aged About 44 Years Assistant Teacher (Lb) C/o. Shri Atul Pathak, H.N. A-54 Dreem City, Khamtari, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Development Block- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher, has been transferred from Primary School, VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:17:50 +0530 2 Khamtarai, Block Bilha to Primary School, Fokatpara Selar, Block Bilha under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to rationalization of teachers and schools concerning with the petitioner in particular. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court May kindly be please to quash the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 and 04.06.2025. 10.3 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pass an order for re-posting of the petitioner at P.M. Shri Govt. Primary school Khamtarai, Development Block Bilha of District Bilaspur from where she had been wrongly transferred to Primary school Fokatpara, Selar, of Bilha Block. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Khamtarai, Block Bilha. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published. In the month of July, 2025, another Teacher Mr. Basant Dubey is retiring and the school is having 352 students and 10 Anganbadi students, therefore, 13 Teachers are still required there. The petitioner is posted at Primary School, Khamtari, which is P.M. Shree School and has been excluded from Rationalization, yet she has been declared as surplus under the 3 Rationalization Instructions. She has made her representations on 03.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 to the authorities concerned, but the same have not been considered till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, though the petitioner has joined at her transferred place of posting on 09.06.2025, she still wants to pursue her representation, 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 Primary School, Khamtarai. She was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Primary School, Fokatpara Selar. The petitioner has challenged her transfer order dated 04.06.2025, which has already been executed and she has joined at her transferred place of posting on 09.06.2025. After joining at the transferred place of posting, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and in between that period, she remained working at her transferred place of posting. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/4) and from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined at her transferred place of posting on 09.06.2025 pursuant to the transfer 4 order dated 04.06.2025. She is claiming that another Teacher Mr. Basant Dubey is going to retire in the month of July, 2025 and as per the number of students, there are 13 teachers required, could not be demonstrated by the petitioner as sufficient ground to quash her transfer order. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the P.M. Shree Schools and Swami Atmanand Excellence Schools are exempted from its merger, but the Teachers have not been exempted, as provided under clause 2.14 of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. She being the Assistant Teacher has been declared surplus and transferred to Primary School, Fokatpara Selar, Block Bilha where she has already joined on 09.06.2025. 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 No. 248/2015 has held in para 3 that: 5 “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 she has already joined at her 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 ved