Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Suman vs State Of Chhattisgarh 10 Wps/9191/2019 ... on 11 November, 2019

                                             1

                                                                                     NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 9176 of 2019

    Rajesh Kumar Suman S/o Giree Prasad Suman Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward
     No. 08 (Old No. 10), Nagar Panchayat Baloda, Baloda, District- Janjgir-
     Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                                            ---- Petitioner

                                         Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Collector District- Bilaspur, Collector Office, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   3. District Education Officer (D.E.O.) District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

   4. Block Education Officer (B.E.O.) Block Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa,
      Chhattisgarh

   5. Principal Govt. Primary School Bhanwar, Block Baloda, District- Janjgir-
      Champa, Chhattisgarh

   6. Principal Govt. Primary School Chitapali, Block Baloda, District- Janjgir-
      Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 11/11/2019

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 12.07.2019 the petitioner was transferred from Government Primary School, Chitapali, Block - Baloda to Government Primary School, Bhanwar, Block - Baloda. Pursuant to such transfer order, the petitioner joined his place of transfer on 18.07.2019 vide 2 Annexure P-3 and his salary was being drawn from the transferred place of posting. It is contended that thereby the transfer order was executed. Thereafter, the transfer of the petitioner has been canceled by order dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure P-1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the transfer order has been executed, the same can only be modified by another transfer order and the earlier transfer order cannot be canceled. He placed his reliance in the judgment passed by this Court in Kaushal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anr. (WPS No.3544 of 2017, decided on 30.10.2017) and Prakash Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (WPS No.7376 of 2019, decided on 17.09.2019).

4. This Court in the case of Kaushal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anr. (WPS No.3544 of 2017, decided on 30.10.2017) this Court has observed thus:-

3) This Court, in the identical matters i.e. Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1, Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and Khubchand Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others3 observed that once the transfer order is executed, the same cannot be cancelled. It was further observed that the employer is always at liberty to pass an order of transfer and posting the employee keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest.

4)The Division Bench of this Court in Tarun Kanungo v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others4, held thus :

"3. 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) In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed.

However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to pass fresh order depending upon the administrative exigency, in accordance with the transfer policy.

5. Since the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. The observation made in the paras 3, 4 & 5 of the WPS No.3544 of 2017 shall also govern the case of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the transfer order dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, the liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to pass afresh order depending upon the administrative exigency, in accordance with the transfer policy.

6. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu