C^ { <0-Z5 Vs RESPONOENTS IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S)NO.-3,386 OF20Q9 PETITIONER '&urgeshwar PrasadSahu, spn of Shri Mahavir Sahu, aged 30 years, Occupation-Service, PreSently posted as Shiksha Karmi &rade-I at ©overnment Higher Secondary Schoot Suma, Oistrict Raipur (CG) ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the JSecretary, Department of School Eclucation, Dau Kalyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Rajpur. 2.The Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development Departmen?, State of Chhqttisgarh, Dau Kalyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya,Raipur. f S.&istrict Panchayat i (Education), Rdipur throughj its Chief Execytive Officer.i Raipur (Ge) PETITION UN&ER ART-XCLE 226 ©f;TMe^ONSriTUTIi©N QF^INOIA ri ij:)!: XI-HC—78 l-IPRtl •!»>»(1<»> 3~5E( "4|'i||(yi'4,yaTti^is, (»l<<li'Hy ^.\^^^..^^.& 3I^'?f'q°W(^3»i^I) iTtft;)N; [V S^fl^i TOKW^isn^t Mr._<just|ce Pr Shri Rajiv Shrivastava coun| Shri Sumesh Bajaj GA for ti^ Challenge in this petitlon sassed by respondent No.1 by v Karmi Grade 1 (Ec| Secondary School Guma, Pai; Government High School, Ls rationailzatlon scheme. Contention of the counsel petjtioner vvas appointed for the there is no other teacher of the s^ Is presently posted. His further saic' to have been transfsrred un< even if this scheme is applied ai treated as a surpius teacher. His & appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grad< of his probation period, he shouid Counsei for the responds petitioner make a suitable re| concerned which v»'ould be decide proposition of the State counsei, hjs agreement. However, he pray ^nfert^i iffrof 'if fet^t <!<!!«(]< ^aifin ail^i l.f DMi el for t'ne petitioner. resDondents/State. *. »to the order dated 17.7.2009 ich the petitioner who Is working nomics) in Govemment Higher ri, has been transferred to ;hhanpur, Paliari, under the for the. petitioner is that the ;onomics subject and except him |id subject in the school where he c|3ntention is that the petitioner is ler the rationalization scheme but is, the petitioner can not be jsntention is that the petitloner was on 8.8.2008 and tiii compietion jot have been transferred. jnts/State submits that let the |>resentation to the authorities ifl in accordance »vith law. To this (ounseS for the petitioner showed i^ for an interim profection tlil the • ssas w ^:::. :{^.^^y''f;^K!?'£^^'fI^%lli'i%t3^i:^^^ XI-HC—78 '3%r 'iiKK!i'LJ,Wiil'S'iKo, fsKniyy T- "8^200 sn^t 'qw (i^T^^) 3)I^!iW ft-11'h ^[ •2RfI^T ai*lich ^witiT^ftaai^T -•2-" '*N<'tlii4 UNirtf^ ftIA tRttiK ^aifinantn -yf representation of the peti{JQner| concerned. Accordingiy, the petition is c the petitioner makes a represent^ within a period of 1 O days from t] order, the authorities concerned further period of three weeks from Is decided by the authorities iisposed of v/ith a direction that if tion to the authorities concerned ie date of receipt of copy of this shall decide the same within s :he date of its receipt. Tii! then the order impugned shali be kept in altieysnce so far as It reiates to the :itioner. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge