6Pi 0~Q < S^ORgT^E]ElGN'EI.Em<^C<3URTOrCHATTIS£xARH ATBILASPCR W. P. JS) N0. 36S^ / 2009 PETITIOKBR 'B<B..Oupta., 'son of Sfcri"Harsewak ^Sypta, aged .abou.t.. 45 years, •n'l'esently wcirldn.g as Lecturer m Cben-iistry, CTOvernment Higher Seconctary School, Utai, Distt. Dtti-g (C.:G;.) ' ' I) 'State of 'CIihattisgaTh - through tfae Secretars', Scfaool Education liepartmeHt, •D'.K.S. Bhavan, •Raipufte.G.:) : • • RESPCH'ilDBNTS ../^' i^ 2) 'Elale Collectar, D'urg, Dist!:. Durg [f^-- 'r^. \ • • • ' ' ^J.} •':.•• •• . .. •;'. • rBe Districf E^&cation Oflicer, sttic'tDurg(C.G.) ^"'''js3^^'' ^^ ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH ATBfLASPUR !VIr. JusticePritinker DiwaRer) Petition (S) No. 3621 of2009 B.B. Gupta VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh arid,others. {z^ Si Shri P.R. Patankar counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG with Smt. Smitha Ghai PL for fhe respondents/State. WRIT PET1TION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ORDER (20.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner who is working as lecturer of Chemistry subject in Higher Secondary Schoi Utaihas been transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Chourel, District Durg. Counsei for the petitibner submits that the optlons were called under the rationalization scheme and the petitioner gave his option for three places but surprisingly he has been shifted to a piace which was never opted by him. He further submits that in the present place of posting the petitioner is working for iast one year and nobody has been posted there so far which shows that there is no administrativ'e exigency in issuing the impugned transfer order. He submits that the wife of the peWpner is also working as teacher in a nearby schoo! and if the petitioner Is forced to join in the transferred place, his entire tife set-up shall be disturbed. Counse! for the respondenfs/State submits that if the petitioner makes a representation to the authoritiesconcerned, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with iaw. To this propositfon ofthe State couosei, counsel for the petitioner showed his agreement. ^> -s Accordingly, the peiition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned that in case the petitioner makes a representation within a period of 1 O days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same shall be decided within a furlher period ofthree weeks from the date of its receipt. Tiil then the order impugned shall not operate so far as it relates to the petitionerand the petitionershail be allowed to work in his present piace of posting. %/—_— - -. ,.^. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge