Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7518 of 2025 1 - Umashankar Kaushik S/o Narayan Prasad Kaushik Aged About 38 Years Occupation Teacher (L.B.) R/o VV5 Vaishnavi Vihar, Phase - I, Uslapur Bilaspur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Education Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Depatment Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
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 04.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Middle School Narautikapa, Takthpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to Govt. Middle School Okhar Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 (mentioned in the petition as ‘Okhra’), Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and
Decision
prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the concerned petitioner case from the possessions of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside / quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 and direct the respondent authorities to conduct the counseling of the petitioner again with the due process of law. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to provide appointment to the petitioner in any of the vacant school in Block – Takthpur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) 10.4 That, the cost of the petition may also be given to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. 10.5 Any other relief may also be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not given the opportunity of hearing before transferring him under the rationalization scheme. The petitioner raised his grievances through representation before the authorities, but neither any steps were taken nor the petitioner was called for further enquiry or counselling. He would further submit that the father of the petitioner is suffering from 3 brain hemorrhage who needs day to day care and who is completely depended upon the petitioner. The petitioner was called for conselling on 04.06.20255 and was forced to join the school which was displayed within three days. During the conselling process numbers of vacant schools were not shown correctly and the consent of the petitioner was taken forcefully and the transfer order was issued arbitrarily which needs to be set aside and the whole process of the couselling should be conducted again. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was posted at Middle School Narautikapa, Takthpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). He was declared surplus under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Middle School Okhar, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 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. 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) and posted at Middle School Narautikapa, Takthpur has been posted at Middle School Okhar, Block Masturi and as per the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has joined at his transferred place of posting in compliance of the order dated 04.06.2025. 4 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: “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.” 5 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. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge