1 - Jahida Begum W/o Ismile Khan Aged About 47 Years Assistant Teacher (Lb) v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8195 of 2025 1 - Jahida Begum W/o Ismile Khan Aged About 47 Years Assistant Teacher (Lb), Presently Posted At Navin Bajrang Nagar Urla, Block Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer And Member Secretary Committee Of District Level Rationalization, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 21/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 02.06.2025, whereby the petitioner, who is an VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:27:48 +0530 2 Assistant Teacher (LB) has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Nehru, Durg to Naveen Bajrang Nagar School, Urla, District Durg under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and
Decision
prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 & 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of her transfer order passed on 02/06/2025. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Teacher (LB), at Govt. Primary School, Nehru, Durg. 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 subject in which the petitioner is teaching has not been considered. She has been appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) and Takiyapara, Durg is a Muslim majority area and she is teaching Urdu as one of the subjects. The place where she has been transferred, there is no post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu), therefore, her transfer order may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, though the petitioner has joined at her transferred place of posting, she made her representations on 02.06.2025, 13.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 and 07.07.2025 to the authorities concerned raising her grievances, but her representations 3 have not been considered 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. Primary School, Nehru, Durg. She was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to Naveen Bajrang Nagar School, Urla, District Durg. The petitioner has challenged her transfer order dated 02.06.2025, which has already been executed and she has joined at her 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, she remained working at her 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. 5. From the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/3) and from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined at her transferred place of posting. The petitioner could not demonstrate that her appointment was for Urdu subject or she was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Urdu). She is claiming that since she is teaching as one of the subjects in Govt. Primary School, Nehru, Durg, she should be treated as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) and should remain there at Govt. Primary School, Nehru Durg. Since the petitioner has not been 4 appointed for teaching Urdu subject, she cannot be considered as Teacher (Urdu). She being the Assistant Teacher (LB) has been declared surplus and transferred to Naveen Bajrang Nagar Primary School, Urla, District Durg, where she 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 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 5 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 she has already joined at her 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. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge