Nag 3% wQg an? Ewaqg “Em mg. gmq gzxvx‘m Vwam.3 3. a. 93y. @KNQE g ... mHamw. Nmwmu... Wm kw m$ 23.».guq mm. .QuE‘maE "mmm%_.. MmEa @g. 2a:: 2° Fw Lwg w $9 Hr 3a $3? 3.34“aim wwmdq gm~4 3% § Ew: t muw Mm£ WM W$X$Ek )Lg, ma mmwMaw Ewm § v 2% n: 35::E 111111. wk cm .\$\..\\\\x..l‘ mmnga mQ . imaw 34$. wiq ..mmmEumm. 39ag Eu$u4&w:§“ W&‘. Wm. g. E. gmdu 43% Wm.qr m § 3a: §D§9 Q”: #aq wwmq? 3mg. u. @m wQ.£..m wwwgg ga $$E2¢ $24 §q-%wim v .mawax swim 424 3 «2&4Egg Magda awag. am m wK£JNm3§§W 0g” m WW Wa ‘ Wmwwm mmmw » ammm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan‘ Shrivastava J. ‘ Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by gn order dated O4-07-2OOQ (Annexure ‘ ‘ order dated 19—06-2000 (Annexur A-2) granting promotion to the petitioner, has been canceiied. Learned counsel for the petiti ner submits that the impugned orde of cancellation of promotion order has been passed on the basis that as the petitioner was transferred to Bemetar on mdtuai‘transfer basis on account of inter—district transfer, original senioity of the petitioner was not liable to be retained and seniority of the peti ioner was liable to be counted only from 22-08—1992 Whereas promotion could be granted only to those who .were appointed on or before 18-01~ 986. Further Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that t ——.—J_—. 28-04-201 0 Shri S. K. Thomas, ccunsel for the pet'rtiorxer. A4) passed by the District Educatidi Officer, Bemetare, by which, earlier gh such an order of transfer was issued, which contains loss of seni rity upon inter—district transfer, the petitioner had never submitted any u dertaklng to this effect nor any such entry was made in his service book, et such a condition was unilaterally imposed upon the petitioner Hi ighting this aspect, a detailed > representation was made by the petitoner to the respondent No.2-District Education Gfficer, which did not ev ke any response, whereupon the instant petition Was filed. [iris aha; r h u i g LEG-22 mm WW, W @m W m . w‘ 9&9) M (3%! 9C 200 Wmmw HL/ mg, Emm1ifmma %a‘ifr<maxr%$ This petition was admitted way returh has been med by the responde; Taking into consideration the would be expedient in the interest of District Education Officer, Education consider petitioner’s representation d: is found that the petitioner had not seniority, respondent authority shall c grant of promotion from due date Respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously within reasonabte time. The petition is finatty disposed L back on 12-34-2001, but, tiil date n its. grievance raised by the petitioner, it iustioe to direct the respondent No.2~ District Bemetara, District Durg to ated 27-07-2000 (Annexure A—5). If it given any undertaking to forgo hie onsider the case of the petitioner for taking into consideration his claim. )f. l / sd" n sm‘was‘ava n§ra Mohguudg Man\ We afm o il / e