Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8888 of 2025 1 - Smt Mamta Chatrey W/o Vijay Kumar Chatrey Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No.49, B.R. Yadav Nagar Bahatarai District- Bilaspur C.G. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan Naya Raipur District- Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Rationalization Committee/ Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Block Edcation Officer Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. K.S. Saini, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.18 19:53:28 +0530 01-08-2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 04- 06-2025 by which she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma),
Decision
Block Bilha and she prayed the following relief(s) in the writ petition:- 2 “10.1That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned order 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) which relates to order of transfer of the petitioner Mamta Chatrey as Teacher at Jan Primary school Kormi, Dhuma which is an interior place. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent that the petitioner may be posted for the post of head master at Government primary school Mohra Cluster block Div Bilha District Bilaspur. 10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon’ble court may deem fit may be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a Teacher (Panchayat). Vide order dated 18-11-2022 she has been promoted to the post of Head Master and has been posted at Girls’ Primary School Birkona, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur. She joined there and working since then. Presently vide order dated 04-06-2025 she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma), Block Bilha from Girls’ Primary School Birkona under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 issued by the State Government. He would further submit that in the counseling for posting of Head Master held on 04-06-2025 she has opted the Govt. Primary School Dhuma, whereas she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma). Against the order of her posting she made representation on 12-06-2025 and 19-06-2025 to respondents No.5 and 4 and requested that the post of Head Master at Govt. Primary School Mohra is lying vacant and she may be posted at Mohra school, but her representation has not been considered. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. He fairly submits that pursuant to the order dated 04-06-2025 the petitioner had joined at her place of posting on 08-07-2025. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondents, on instruction, would submit that after giving proper opportunity at the time of counseling which was held on 04-06- 3 2025 the impugned order has been issued. The petitioner has opted for Govt. Primary School Dhuma at the time of counseling and she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma). Under the strict compliance of Rationalization Instructions dated 02-08-2024 the surplus Head Masters have been posted at required schools after giving opportunity to opt the convenient place as far as possible and the petitioner has also chosen Govt. Primary School Dhuma and she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma) which cannot be said to be arbitrary and therefore, there is no merit in the petition and since the petitioner has already joined there, the impugned order cannot be quashed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that at the time of counseling held on 04-06-2025 she opted for Govt. Primary School Dhuma, whereas, she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma). True it is, that the petitioner has opted for Govt. Primary School Dhuma at the time of counseling, however, for the reason best known to the authorities she has been posted at Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma). This Court does not find any arbitrariness in the order impugned as it appears that Govt. Primary School Dhuma as well as Janpad Primary School Kormi (Dhuma) are situated under the same territory particularly when the petitioner has already joined there on 08-07-2025. After joining of the petitioner on 08-07-2025 at Janpad Primary School Kormi she has filed the present writ petition on 22-07-2025 after due execution of the order dated 04-06-2025. 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 4 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.” 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 teachers, 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. Even otherwise, Rationalization Instructions are mere guidelines. It may not 5 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, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 10. 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 is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge