Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Sarkar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2025
Digitally signed by V
PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.08.20
17:35:05 +0530
2025:CGHC:42040
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8974 of 2025
Dinesh Sarkar S/o Late Mr. Dulal Sarkar Aged About 48 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body),
Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Badgaon, Block Koilibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster
Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Public Instruction, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector And President District Rationalization Committee, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker
Chhattisgarh
4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh
5 - District Education Officer And Secretary District Level Rationalization Committee, Distt.
Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh
6 - Joint Director Education Division Baster Jagdalpur Distt. Baster Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Shri Anmol Sharma, PL
——————————————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
20.08.2025
1. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming the following reliefs:
“1) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or like writ by quashing/setting
aside the impugns order dated 5/6/25 issued by respondent.
2) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or like writ by directing the
respondents to permit the petitioner to work at the present place only i.e.
before declaring and passing an order of Surplus under the
Rationalization Policy.
Wps 8974 of 2025
2
3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is
Lecturer LB, Chemistry, was posted at the Government Girls Higher Secondary
School, Kapsi, Block-Koilibeda ( for short, ‘Kapsi School’). Vide order dated
05.06.2025, Annexure P2, petitioner has been posted at the Government
Higher Secondary School, Badgaon, Block-Koilibeda, District-Uttar Bastar
Kanker (for short, ‘Badgaon School’), under the Rationalization Instructions.
There is demand made by the Principal of Kapsi School but ignoring the
requirement and demand at the School, petitioner has been posted at
Badgaon School. From posting of petitioner at Badgaon School, there would
be shortage of Lecturer (Chemistry) in Kapsi School. He would also submit that
another Lecturer, Chemistry, who was also posted at Kapsi School is going to
retire on 28.02.2026, and looking to the number of students in the School,
there is still vacant post available for Science subject, yet, petitioner has been
made surplus teacher, and posting of petitioner at Badgaon School is in
violation of Rationalization Instructions, and therefore, the impugned order may
be quashed. Further, he would fairly submit that petitioner has joined at the
Badgaon School on 06.06.2025 in compliance of order dated 05.06.2025, and
thereafter, he made representation on 07.07.2025 to the authorities, raising his
grievance.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions, supported the
impugned order dated 05.06.2025, and would submit that from the document
annexed with the petition at Page-13, which is allegedly the demand made by
the Principal, Kapsi School, for posting of Lecturer, Chemistry, in the School,
Wps 8974 of 2025
3
there is no date, or year has been mentioned on it as to when the said demand
was made; further, another Lecturer, Chemistry, who is going to be retired on
28.02.2026, which may not be a ground for quashing of order dated
05.06.2025 i.e. posting of the petitioner. The authorities concerned, looking to
the strength of students, and available vacant posts in the School, declared the
present as Surplus Teacher, and posted him at Badgaon School. Therefore,
there is no violation of any condition of Rationalization Instructions, and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents
annexed to the present petition.
5. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that
Principal, Kapsi School has made a request for posting of Lecturer, Chemistry
in the School but from perusal of document annexed to the petition at Page-13,
it could not reveal that as to on which date or year, it has been made, and what
is the exact position at present in the school. Further, one Mr Kavindra Sen,
Lecturer, Chemistry, who is working in the Kapsi School, though promoted on
the post of Principal, and going to be retired on 28.02.2026, which cannot be a
ground for quashing of the impugned order, because, retirement of any other
Lecturer in the School cannot be considered to be the vacant post as on date.
It is for the authorities concerned to take a decision with respect to surplus
teacher on the basis of strength of students, availability of concerned lecturers,
and sanctioned vacant posts in the School. Further, as per the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, petitioner has joined his
place of posting at Badgaon School on 06.06.2025 in compliance of order
dated 05.06.2025.
Wps 8974 of 2025
4
6. In the matter of “U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank” reported in 2023
INSC 1077, at 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 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. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incident 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 the public interest and
administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another
Wps 8974 of 2025
5
person, if any vacancy arises on account of the transfer/posting of an
employee, as it has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of 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 in 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 does not
find any scope of interference in this petition. Further, this Court has limited
jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter. The court can interfere only in the
case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer
order, or the transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and
regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one
place forever by the Court order. It is not a case of proved mala fide, lack of
competence of the officer passing the transfer order or infraction of any
statutory Rules and Regulations.
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 is
made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma