Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7516 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Ratre S/o Dwarika Prasad Ratre Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Jangda, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 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 Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Hon'ble 10-07-2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2), whereby the petitioner, who is Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Govt. Boys’ Middle School Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN Ranipartewa, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.) to Govt. Middle School Jangda, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.) under the 2 Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs
Decision
in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 This, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Merger and Rationalization Policy/ Guideline dated 02/08/2024 (Annexure-P/2) as illegal and void ab initio and further be pleased to set aside the impugned posting transfer order (Annexure-P/2) of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has wrongly been declared as excess/surplus in the school from where he has been transferred and the petitioner’s seniority has not been taken into consideration while declaring him surplus, whereas, junior to the petitioner has not been declared surplus. There is no any complaint against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting and he has made representation to the authority concerned for cancellation of transfer order, but no action has been taken by the authorities on the representation of the petitioner till date. 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. Boys’ Middle School Ranipartewa, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband. He was declared surplus 3 under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Govt. Middle School Jangda, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband. The petitioner has challenged his transfer order dated 03.06.2025, 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner who is a Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Govt. Boys’ Middle School Ranipartewa, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband to Govt. Middle School Jangda, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband vide transfer order dated 03.06.2025 and in pursuance of the order dated 03.06.2025 he has already joined at his transferred place of posting. 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: 4 “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 her transferred place of posting. 9. So far as challenge to the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 is concerned, since no argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case in this regard, the same has not been considered in the present case and it is left open to the petitioner to raise the same at any later stage. 10. 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 Aadil