1 2025:CGHC:35003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8265 of 2025 1 - Ramchandra Goutam S/o Shri Shivdulare Goutam Aged About 51 Years R/o Madanpur, Post Singhri P.S. Ratanpur District - Bilaspur (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 Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Level Rationalization Committee Korba Through The President District Level Rationalization Committee Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Collector Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Block Education Officer Bilha District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:18:42 +0530 2 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 Govt. Primary School, Nayapara Gondaiya Block Bilha to Primary School, Bhatchaura, Block Masturi 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 be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to quash/set impugned order dated 04/06/2025 vide order no 5457/Rationalization/2025-26 (P/1) where by the petitioner was declared the Surplus Lecturer (Assistant teacher) in Government Primary School, Nayapara, Gondaiya, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur and consequently transferred to the Government Primary School, Bhatchaura, block Masturi, District Bilaspur under the Rationalization policy of the State Government without considering the objection/ representation of the petitioner. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2025 (P/2) and 13.06.2025 (P/5). 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Nayapara Gondaiya. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 3 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and list of surplus Teachers have been published. At the time of counseling, the petitioner had opted for Primary School, Lufa, Block Kota, but he has not been allotted the said school and without giving proper opportunity to opt for another school, he has been transferred to Primary School, Bhatchaura. He has made his representations on 05.06.2025 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 his transferred place of posting, he still wants to pursue his 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 Govt. Primary School, Nayapara Gondaiya. He was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Primary School, Bhatchaura. The petitioner has challenged his transfer order dated 04.06.2025, which has already been executed and he has joined at his 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 remained working at his 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. 4 5. From the document dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P/4) and from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting. He is claiming that since he was not provided sufficient opportunity to opt any other school at the time of counseling and he opted for Primary School, Lufa, but the same has not been allotted to him, therefore, there is violation of Rationalization Instructions and prayed for quashing of the impugned transfer order. He being the Assistant Teacher has been declared surplus and transferred to Primary School, Bhatchaura, Block Masturi, where he has already joined. 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 5 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 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 he has already joined at his 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