1 2025:CGHC:47626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1405 of 2023 Smt. Sarita Toppo W/o Anil Kumar Toppo Aged About 43 Years Posted As Superintendent At Kasturba Gandhi Aavasiy Vidyalay Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Samagra Shiksha State Office Pension Bada Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector- Cum- District- Mission Director Samagra Shiksha Gaurella Pendra Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Gaurella Pendra- Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Mission Co- Ordinator Samagra Shiksha, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Klaris Leena Josef Posted As Superintendent At Kasturba Gandhi Aavasiy Vidyalay Gaurella, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 4 : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 18:26:13 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.02.2023 issued by respondent No.3, i.e., the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha, Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, whereby the petitioner’s posting was cancelled on the ground that it was not approved as per the letter dated 15.07.2014. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the same order dated 09.02.2023, pursuant to which she, while serving as Superintendent at Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiy Vidyalaya, Gaurela, was relieved of her duties. 2. By filing the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order Dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent Collector, Gaurella- Pendra-Marwhi; 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned relieving order Dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aavasiy Vidyalay Gaurela; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the clause 1 of 3 the Letter Dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P/3) issued by the Mission Director. 10.4 That, order Dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by the District Education Officer, Gaurella-Pendra-Marwhi; 10.5 To kindly grant any other relief(s)/ order(s), which deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Lecturer (Economics) whereas the private respondent is substantively a Teacher (LB). Vide order dated 08.12.2022 issued by the District Education Officer, Gaurella- Pendra-Marwahi, the private respondent was posted as Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aavasiy Vidyalaya, Gaurela. On 09.12.2022, the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha, Bilaspur, issued a communication referring to letter dated 15.07.2014 of the State Project Office, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur, wherein it was clarified that only Lecturers belonging to English, Mathematics, or Science groups could be posted as Superintendents. Accordingly, the Collector, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, vide order dated 20.01.2023, cancelled the posting of the private respondent and by the same order posted the petitioner as Superintendent. The petitioner joined on 28.01.2023 and discharged duties without any complaint. However, by the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, the 4 Collector cancelled the posting of the petitioner on the ground that she was Lecturer (Economics) and, therefore, not eligible as per letter dated 15.07.2014. By the same order, the private respondent, though a Teacher (LB), was again posted as Superintendent in place of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this action is contrary to the letters dated 15.07.2014, 09.12.2022 and circulars dated 04.08.2011, 07.02.2013, and 14.07.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, which prohibit bypassing senior officers and handing over charges to juniors without valid reasons. The District Education Officer was not competent to issue the order dated 08.12.2022, since the competent authority is the Collector, who is the ex-officio District Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha. No complaint or adverse material exists against her, as is evident from the State’s reply. The allegations of the private respondent in this regard are baseless. She also points out that during rationalization she was declared excess at her earlier school and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar, but she continues to hold charge of Superintendent, which is independent of rationalization. The petitioner has also challenged clause 1 of letter dated 15.07.2014 of the Mission Director, which restricts eligibility for the post of Superintendent only to Lecturers of English, Mathematics, and Science, contending that the said classification is arbitrary, lacks rational nexus as it excludes Lecturers of other subjects, including Economics, without any justifiable basis. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in law. Vide order dated 20.01.2023, the petitioner was posted as Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya (KGBV), Gaurela, which was subsequently quashed by order dated 09.02.2023. It is urged that the posting order dated 20.01.2023 was in consonance with the departmental set-up, and the subsequent cancellation was arbitrary and unwarranted. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 04.06.2025 from Government Higher Secondary School, Lalpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar. She was relieved from Lalpur on 05.06.2025 and joined her new posting at Jogisar on 09.06.2025. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner has no vested right to challenge the posting of respondent No.6. It is contended that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner has already been transferred and joined at her new place of posting, thereby rendering the petition infructuous. 6. Learned State counsel, as well as respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 supporting respondent No.6, and jointly submit that the transfer order dated 04.06.2025, the relieving order dated 05.06.2025, and the joining report dated 09.06.2025 clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has already assumed charge at Government Higher 6 Secondary School, Jogisar. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and carefully perused the record. The documents filed by respondent No.6, including the transfer order dated 04.06.2025, relieving order dated 05.06.2025, joining letter dated 09.06.2025, as well as subsequent communication dated 18.07.2025, have been examined. 8. From a careful perusal of the records and documents placed on file, it is evident that pursuant to the transfer order dated 04.06.2025, the petitioner has been duly posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar, Block Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), and she has assumed charge of her new posting on 09.06.2025. In view of this subsequent development, the interim order dated 16.02.2023, which had stayed the operation of the earlier order dated 09.02.2023, has become wholly redundant and has lost all practical efficacy. 9. In the circumstances, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition no longer subsists, as the relief sought has already been rendered academic by virtue of the petitioner’s joining at her new place of posting. There being no continuing controversy or live issue between the parties that requires 7 adjudication, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition has become infructuous. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of being infructuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh