1,8-0^ ^^feS.3- f IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P. (Sl N0. OF 2011 PETITIONER ^sy ^^••:i-^"\..K <^si^ ^^^^ ^^.•- t(»~" RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1 2. 3. 4. 5. Chandan Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Sukhdeo Singh, Upper Division Teacher, Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Middle School, Lalpur, Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh Distt Korea (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ^^^d iS^^-e--^-.- mGH COIJRT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BII,A8P1}R WRIT PETmON (S) No. 1617 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 VT:RS(JS State ofChhattisf ;aA & Others, WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'We Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, .1. Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitianer. Shri Arun Sao, Goveniment Advocate for tlie No.l,2and5. , ..,.. ':. Notie foi' the respoiident No. 3 and 4, despite service of (Passed on 01" day ofSepteinber, 201,1) 1. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that tbe impugned order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexiire P/l) transferring the petitioaer, working as Upper Division Teacher, at Middle School Lalpw, to Mid<He SchooL Barkela; on fhe ground of rationalizatioa after declarint him siuplus, is bad in law as the same has been pas.sed bytl»Cluef Executive Officer (for short 'the CEO'), JBa Panchayat, Koria. 2. Stiri Pawar fiirttier submits Ihat the memo dated 19.05.2010 (Annexiire P/3), provides tbat for transfemag ofPrimary aad Pre- Middle School Teachers, who are declared surplus, fhere stiould be a committee at Janpad Level comprisiag of CEO, Janpad Pancfaayat as Presidsnt, Block Education Qfficer as Member tecretarv, Block Resource Coordinatar. Raiiv Gaadhi Shiksha Mission, aad one representative of Nagar Palika/Naear Nigam, as Members. ,- - -'-••: • :...;; Notices were issued to the respondents aotices have duly beea served upon the res respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. CEO, Jila JanpMl PanclMyat Maneadragai'h, have before the C-ourt nor have filed anv retiira. 25.03.2011 and flie 3 and 4. The ;hayat, Koria and CEO, ehosea-fiiot to appear •^~S^^B^g^Z^.~._-^ ;^ .:...-''''"^'s'.i. '•.3> i^^g^^ • ^ J- 2 Ajait 6. 7. Shri 8ao, leamed Govea-mneiit Advocrte apcearing for tAe Stote/ respondent No. l, 4 and 5 suhmits ftat it appears that Ae respondeiit No. 3 has not followed the guidelines a.s provided in memo dated 19.05.2010. This is for Ihe respondent No. 3 and 4 to explain. On consideration of flie siibaiission made by leamed couasel appearing for tlie petitioner and respondent No. 1, 2 and 5, as well as cm perosal ofthe doaimetit.s, particulariy Ihe impiigned transfer order, it appeais that necessary requisite comnrittee as provided in memo dated 19.05.2010 was no>t constitirted and the respondent No. 3, cai his ovm has passedtiie impugned order dated 14.01.2011 fAanexure P/l) under the garb of rationalizatioa policv. Tfae contention of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioaer that Ihe traasfer order was not passed by a competent Comimttee, a.s aforestated, marits acceptance. Thus, the impugned fraasfer order dated 14.01.2011 (Aanexure P/l) is bad in law, uajust and deserves to be and is accwdingly quashed in respect of tlie petitioner. Having regard to the faots situation ofthe case wfaeti it appeara that the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Kariya, has Aiven the petftioner to the Court by not eomplymg with tfae provisions oflaw aad luriher, he hsis aot chosen to appear before dus Court even after notice, it would bejust and proper to inq)ose a cost ofRs. 5000/- payable by •tbe respondeiit No. 3 to the petitioner. The said amoiiat may be recovered from the r^poadent No. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowad to the extent. _—^- Sd/- SatishK.AgniIiotri Judge