2025:CGHC:34455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8192 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar Thakur S/o Late Shri Madhosingh Thakur Nishad Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Karhi, Block - Bemetara, R/o Village - Karhi, Tahsil And District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sanchalak Lok Shikshan Sanchalanalaya Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector / President District Level Yuktiyuktkaran Samiti Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the Govt. Primary School Karhi, Bemetara, to the Govt. Primary School, Tendua, Nawagarh, under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- Wps 8192 of 2025 2 अनुतोषः - 10.1 यह कि उत्तरवादीगण मां 03 एवा 04 किनुदीशिकितो किय जावा कि वाषः 2025-26 मां किक्ष व्यवास्थापनु / अकितोषः / सू%ची सूबंधी सूमांस्त अकि*लेख मांनुनुय न्यायलेय सूमांक्ष प्रस्ततो र। 10.2 यह कि उत्तरवादी मां 03 द्वार परिरतो प्रश्नाधीनु आदी किदीनु4 04.06.2025 परिरकिष्ट प-01 अपस्त / किनुरस्त र यकिची प%वावातो6 सू. प्रथाकिमां ले रह किवासू खण्ड बंमांतोर मां ह पदीस्था रखनु सूबंधी किनुदी जार किय जावा। 10.3 यह कि, अन्या अनुतोषः जा मांनुनुय न्यायलेय उत्तरवादीगण सू यकिचीतो किदीलेय जावा। उकिचीतो सूमांझे 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Karhi, Bemetara. 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 transferred place of posting, he made his representation raising his grievances, but his representation has not been considered till date, therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. Wps 8192 of 2025 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to other place. 4. The petitioner has challenged his transfer order dated 04.06.2025, which has already been executed and the petitioner has already joined at the 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, petitioner remained working at the 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 appropriately refer to two Bench decisions in 2000 (2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Wps 8192 of 2025 4 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/Lecturer, and merely making the representation does not entitle the petitioner to be remained there, particularly when the petitioner has already joined at the 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 padma