2"- W“ an r Vi? éu W ‘i 35 i3£a§£ SEE? €L§§E§ Ega”; gfé ‘ amh ma s gagiTégEaww i ‘ '\ ‘ {$3} dim? ma»! Egg “Vf __::f-g§{—_§ cggiyi-EE E13233 gag ¢x® )tZa ‘ iléaggg m$a3fzg3g 33§f§§§3 E 3% {3:}? 'ii‘t‘iiE‘ei—‘fww imcgwzi «(:2 3E§EEIDQ3 ‘gzzgzmfécigg 3;“;b3ftp‘: 3?{;‘q;i1;i ‘i333ggg 3f 1-r- q T Naif; avwSa1d 'nN'Wa E. § i ? g i ' Xl—HC~78 ~ mmi‘q'm? wmm mmmm Soma 30-8-2006 Mr. Vishnu Koshta, couns Mr. Satish Gupta, Depuiy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents, on advance copy. e ! for the petitioner. Heard both the counsel. > By the instant writ peti under Amcle 226 of the Constitution of lnd’ia, the petmoner has chall nged his~transfer order dated 29-7-2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by espondent No.3, whereby he ha$ been transferred from Primary Soho L Dhanesara to Primary Schooi, P.V.113, Block: Koylibeda. The said transfer has b en made under the rationalization scheme. Clause 7 of the rationalizatio scheme provides for an appeal by the aggrieved person. Learned counsel for th petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal b ore respondent No.2 on 4-8~2006 and that appeal is not being decided by espondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 be directed to decide the appe l to which learned counsel appearing for the $tate/respondents has no object on. Having heard learned co nsel forthe parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner with n 30 days from the date of receipt of a copys of this order, in accordance with aw. With the direction aforesa d. the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P. c.3552/2006 also stands disposedof. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge t‘ n