HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISCyURH. BILASPUR W.P.tSI Wo.4339/2007 PETITIONER RBSPONDENT8 ¥• Arvind Kumar Rajput S/o Shri Vilaly Rajput, aged about 41 years, Developinent shores center coordinater Laflunga, District Raigarh (C.G.). Resident of ShantiNagar lailunga, District Raigarfa (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgai-h Through Secretaiy Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director (Mission) Rajeev Gaadhi Shiksha Mission C.G, Raipur (C.G.) 3, Coimaissioncr, Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Departiaent, Raipur (C.G.) 4, Assistant Commissioner Tribal Deveiopiaent, Ra^arh(C.G,) 5. Collector & Dist. Mission Director Rajeev Gaadhi Shiksha Mission, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6, District Coordinator Rajeev Gandtu Shiksha Mission Raigai-h, District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Block Education Officer, LaUunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRITPETmpBrUBroBRARTICLE 226 OFTHB CONSTITUTIOBT OFINDSA Appearance: Shri R.S. Patel, counselforthe Petitioncr. Shri Yashwant Siagh, Govt. Advocate for fhe State on advance copy ORAl.ORDBR (31.07.2007) SOTIIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner, who is working on fhe siibstentive post of Assistant Teacher, has fited this Writ. Petjtion being aggrieved with the order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P-l), whereby, the additional charge ot Vikas Kkand. Strot Kendra Somnuayak, which W.P.<S)No.4339/2007 i \ £ ^CC <.-. '" v' was given to hiin by order dated 5.10.2005, has heen taken back froin him. I-^amed counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of fhe goveninient is nuatafide, fherefore, tT-ie impngned order be set aside. A pemsal of the recoixl would show that the aforesaid order has been passed on the basis oforriier dated 5/5/2007 (Annexure P-2) issued by the School Educafcion Departroent, accoi-riing to which, it has been specified that such posts shall be held by Trauied Teacher/Headmaster ofMiddle School/I^'ctiirer. On pouitedly being asked froiu leamed connsel for the petjtioner as to whether tlie petitioner is a trained teacher or not, he iieplied that tbe petitioner is not a teained teachRr. In view of the above, when therc is specific coDdition of the person being a trained teacher and &e petitioner is not a trained teacher, witlidrawal of such additional charge froia the haads of the petitioner cannot be said to be vitiated by malafide or not in accordance with law. There is no force in the ai^uinents raised by leanied counsel for the petitioner. Havjng heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and after ;oing through the contents of fhe Writ Petition, I do not find any illegality in tlie order passed hy the conceniRd airtborily vide Annexure P-1. There is no merit in tliis petition aiid the same is disniissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna