c. ,\- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 Singte Bench w.p. rsi NO. <H° \^ of 2011 PETITIONER V \^ ..-•5S?/>° iv..r-"^-''"...-- .^&^-^ ^ ff- A®(^y'^^y "~ -^' RESPONDENTS: Prem Lal Chouhan, Son of Shri Dukalu Ram Chouhan, aged about 41 years, presently posted as a Upper Division Teacher, at Govt. Middle School, Kasalva, Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Mahasamund ,(C.G.) Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •<». Gowri HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJT PETITIQN_{S) N0.4013 OF 2011 PETITIONER Prem Lal Chouhan Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others And WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4014 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Kavita Chouhan Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petitions underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State.' ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day of July, 2011) 1. Since the petitioners in W.P. (S) Nos.4013 & 4014 of 2011 are husband & wife and their grievances are one and the same, thus, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who happened to be the husband & wife and working as teachers have been transferred and posted at separate places by order dated 15-7-2011. The respondent authorities may be directed to post the petitioners at one place in view of the guidelines prescribed forrationalization ofteachers. 3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the petitioners submit a joint representation raising their grievances, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks. 4. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for tllte petitioners, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge