1^Z> c^ IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s) N0. L(020 QF 2009 PETITIONER Vs RESPONbENTS ^^ ^-^y .»•• ^' 'v^f" ,»' Virendra Kumar Tandan/son of Late Shri B.L. Tandan, aged 30 years, Occupation-Service, Presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I at Government Higher Secondary School, Udan, District Bilaspur (CO) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. TheSecretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development bepartment, State of Chhattisgarh, Dau Kalyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 3. District Panchayat (Education), Raipur through its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^"^''.. 1^-" ^ ^, -y XI-HC—78 3~^T '^HT^R, ^-dl^4 Ko, [®tdiyy ^n^.........i.<4'..a...cs>..^...v(o.z>./....- ^smw sh*<j<^»-••-t'~r---—------7--^ 200 3TT^T'q^? (^t^^) 3^T^FTf^N 7T^T 3?T^T^THFF fiw^. CL.' ?^<nw ^fi^ 3:n^r SB : HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICE PIfclTINKBR DIWAKBR 03.08.2009 Shri Malay Shirvastava, Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. G.A. ^r^pfr? im??f ^ f^t <r<3i<^i< ^3^R 3fl^?T coilnsel for fhe petitioner. Ifbr the State. Challenge ia fhe present ^etition is to tibie order dated 20.07.2009 passed by responden|: No.l by which the petitioner who is workmg as Shiksha Karmi| traasferred froiii Govemment Hi^ Palan, Distt. Raipur to Goveram^nt High School, Khamhadya, Bilaigarh. Contention of counsel fof fhe petitioner 1s fhat tbe petitioner was appouited for fhe Grade I (Econoxnics) has been ;her Secoudaiy School, Odan^ pconoiuics subject aad except him fhere is no ofher teacher of |lie said subject in the school where he is presentty posted. Hisj further contention is tfiat the petitioner is said to have l^een traasferred under fhe rationalization scheine but even is, fhe petitioner caanot be trea^ contention is ftiat fhe petitionej f fhis scheine is appUed as it :ed as a surplus teacher. His r was appoiated as Shiksha Kanni Grade I on 9.8.2008 aad tpl corapletion ofhis probation period, he shoiild not have been t|'aasferred. Contention of counsel for the respoudents/State is fhat 1 let fhe petitioner inake a su|itable representation to fhe j authorities concemed which wo^ild be decided ui accordance wifh law. To fhis proposition of the State counsel, coiinsel for 3l.O^-HC-78~ \^^ ^^ STT^T ^RT l^fN? ?T^T ^^ ^RN^ :i-r ^~^r ^i^i<yi^, ^Ti1^^<o', l^nry w^rwN; W'l?- <A? ^^ ,00 <) CT^T XR^> (^i^^i) ^!^R"^fN^I^ -^^ agrce4ient. the petitioner showed his mterim protection tUl the repr< ^:i: decided by tihLe aufhorities conce] of ten jdays Accordiagly the petition i^ that if fhe petitioner xaakes a concero.ed wifhia a penod copy of fhe order, fhe aufhont^ same withia a furfher period of receipt. TiU then fhe order impu| so far as it relates to the petition4r disposed of wifh a directlon rdpresentation to fhe authorities from fhe date of receipt of es concemed shaM decide the Ijhree weeks froni fhe date of its ^ned shall be kept ia abeyaace ^i^ifeNt^ "w^ff ^f fe^) <r^^i< ^^rH37I^?T However, he prays for aa sentation of fhe petitioner is aed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge