Single Bencli C E } 057% % BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR a. @ WRIT PETITION NOAéé g /2006 PETITIONER Shri Pramod Tiwari, S/0.Shri{{ Bodhan Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 37 years, R/o. New Chandaniyapara, Shiv Mandir, Janjgir, Working as Assistant W ‘ t “$53g‘39 District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). 3B “a? ID b Teacher in Government Girls g‘w’h§¥§§ Primary School, Hardi, Janjgir, VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, I School Education Department, DaK.S; Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2.. The District Education Officer District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). 3. The Principal; Government Girls Primary. School, Hardi, Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 4. The Collector,” District Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS,ORDER/ ORDERS,DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS > IN NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ; s XI~HC-78 WW,WW,W . m. ?. (g—éé ‘ m 200$ WW .. WW (W) mam mmml mmwanéw WW&’@W %a¥%n€m%¥r ConsequenTly, M.(W.)P.No. 603/2006 also sTands disposed of. CerTified copy as per rule Sd/— L.C. Bhadoo Judge L 31 -8-200& Mr. Ashok Soni, counsel fcr' ?hg pem'ioner. Mr. swish Gum-a, Depufy Govt Advocate for ‘rhe stem/respondents, on advance copy. Heard. The only grievance raised! by The pefifioner in This wrif pe‘rifion under I i Ar‘h’ck 226/221 of fhe Consfifu-ion of India is 'i'ha‘r m per- ihe Rafionalizai-ion Scheme, 2006 in case of surplus feachers in any school, ihen only The junior mosi Teacher-s are 1’0 be included in The surplus lisT and To be Transferred as per scheme. Whereas, in The presenT case, There are many junior Teachers To The peTiTioner, buT Their names have noT been included in The IisT and The name of The peTiTioner has been includ ld in conTravenTian of The scheme. The peTiTianer has The r medy To file an appeal before The appellaTe auThoriTy as per clause-7 of T e raTianalizaTion scheme and The appellaTe auThoriTy is bound To consider T e grievance of The peTiTioner, if The same is found correcT according To The s heme, and To correcT The some. since The peTiTioner has e ually efficacious alTernaTive remedy available, Therefore, he should prefer an peal before The appelIaTe auThoriTy and The auThoriTy To consider The poinTs ised by The peTiTioner. The Time Taken by The p TiTioner in filing This peTiTion Till iTs disposal shall be condoned in preferring T e appeal before The appellaTe auThoriTy. WiTh The direcTion afores id, The peTiTion sTands disposed of.