Sakti, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8353 of 2025 1 - Harish Kumar Banchhor S/o Shri Panchram Banchhor Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Teacher At The Government Middle School Jamgahan, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.25 18:10:19 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 2 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is Teacher (Arts), has been posted from Govt. Middle School, Jamgahan, Block Sakti, District Sakti to Govt. Middle School, Devarhat, Block Lormi, District Mungeli under the Rationalization Instructions dated
Decision
02.08.2024 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to quash the impugned posting order dated 07.06.2025 issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur C.G. (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted a Teacher (Arts) at Govt. Middle School, Jamgahan, Block Sakti. Under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner was declared as surplus and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Devarhat, Block Lormi. The seniority of the petitioner has not been considered, as he has been appointed in the year 2006 and since in his graduation English Literature was the main subject, he should be considered as Teacher (English) and should be posted accordingly. His wife is posted as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Seepat-khurd, Block Malkharauda and having two minor children. On 3 the ground of husband and wife, he has been transferred in Janjgir- Champa district in the year 2016. Against the order of his posting, she made representation to the respondent authorities on 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025, but his representation has not been considered and he has been declared surplus and posted at Govt. Middle School, Devarhat, which is against the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. He fairly submits that the petitioner has joined at Govt. Middle School, Devarhat in compliance of the order dated 07.06.2025 and the impugned order of his posting is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was declared surplus under the strict compliance of the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been posted at Govt. Middle School, Devarhat. From the representation dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 (Annexure P/6), the petitioner himself made averment in his representation that in the Divisional Level counseling held on 07.06.2025, he opted for Govt. Middle School, Devarhat, and therefore, he on his own opted for Middle School, Devarhat and subsequently joined there, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 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/6) dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025, it transpires that the petitioner himself has opted for Govt. Middle School, Devarhat in Divisional Level counsel held on 07.06.2025. Further, from the submissions made by learned 4 counsel for the petitioner, he has joined at his place of posting in compliance of the order dated 07.06.2025. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate from any document that his order of posting dated 07.06.2025 is in violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 or there is any arbitrariness. Particularly, when the order dated 07.06.2025 has been complied with the and the petitioner has joined at his place of posting, the impugned order of posting cannot be quashed. The grounds raised by the petitioner that his wife is posted at Govt. Primary School, Seepat-khurd, Block Malkharauda and he is having two minor children, are to be considered by the authorities concerned. 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 5 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. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not supplement the general powers of the employer provided under the statutory service rules, i.e. to post a person at a place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State as also considering that the petitioner had joined at his place of posting, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 6 9. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge