O) 03 JN THE HIGH COURT ()F QiiHATTI$GARH AT BILA$PUR wan PEImcm No.3i $1 mm: EEIIHQNER$ Radheshyam Baghel aged about 54 years' S/o Late Shri R.P‘ Baghel, Assistant Director, at O/O D.E.O., Legal Ce“, Raipur, R/o Tatyapara, Ralpur. Adltya Lal Tikariya, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Sukh Lal Tikariya Assistant Director, at O/O D.E.O., Legal Cell, Raipur. R/o Tatyapara, Raipur, G.R. Sahu, aged 57 years, S/o Shri Laxman Siiigh Assistant Director, at 0/0 D.E.O., Legal Cell, Raipur. R/o Tikrapara, Raipur. V.K. Shram, aged about 6O years, S/o Shri U.D. Sharrna, Lecturer, Assistant Director, at O/O D.E.O., Legal Cull, Raipur. R/o Tikrapara, Raipur. R.S. Chauhan, aged about 44 years, S/o Shri'k.S. Chauhan, Lecturer, Assistant Director, at O/O D.E.O., Legal Cull, Raiput R/o Shailendra Nugar, Ratpnr w 1i“ / R%5PQDENTS NI / State of Chhattisgatli Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. The Director of Public Instructions, Chhuttlsgarh, Pension Bada, Rainur [06.]. The District Education Officer, Raipur [C.G.]. L17 wBIT’ FETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 9F I "HE §ONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH. AT BILA$PUR Wm WRIT PETITIOBI N0. 3131 OF 2005 Radhe5hyam Baghei and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Shn‘ Ravish Verma with for the petiu'oners. Shrti RK. Keshanvani, Advocates S Shri Bhaskar Pyashi, Panel Lawyer for the tate/rcspondents N0. 1 to 3 on advanw copy. N sum! Kama: Sinha J Shri Ravish Verma with Shri R. for the petitioners. Sta Shri Bhaskar Pyashi, Panel Lawyer for the tef respondents No. 1 to 3 on advance copy. m LA. No. 6171 of 2005: This is an application for tu‘gent hearing. K. Keshamani, Advocates The. mattef is¥ taken up on Boaxl. LA. No. 6171 of 2005 for urgent hearing stands disposed of. K W..P. No. 3131 of 2005: Heard on admission. 31 /2V astablishment of Legal C611 at Raipur to BilaSpur in the ofiice of District Education Officer, Bilaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Legal Cell was functioning at Raipur which is new capital of State and 1'11 all faimeSs and public interest, this Cell should not have been ordered to be transferred to Bilaspur. He further submits that looking to the different institutions situated in the capital of the State, it would be better if this Cell is allowed to continue at Raipur itself instead of Bilaspur. I have heard, lealned counsel at length and also perused the records filed along with writ petition. The petitioners have tiled a circular dated 2910.19.99, which has been issued by the Director, Public Education Directorate (NLR) defining the works of the Legal Cell. Para-2 of the aforesaid circular is quoted as under:- "2.1 WWWtWWW WWW/W W dig at Wit WWWWWWW WWtWWW/ 2.2 WWJfWWatWM WI 2.3 WWtWWWW W.WWWWWW WWdWWWWW #We‘a’n 2.4 w W/yga Wat/W W [$737117 WWWW$WW% atewtgtegvwwaw stew W/WWW WwW WWWgWdWWW WWI g .. W4 , 33 273W W W féar wwwmmm wwwwzfmivw W#WWW¢WDI# W§gmwmwm 214 WWlfW/WW Ifwe examjna the work and liability of the Legal‘Cell thap it would appear “that The Cell has been established for doing valious works, in rcla‘rion to the matters pending bsfom the Courts of 121w and other institutions. In fact, it has bean established to faciHtate the judicial work to be peiformed by Courts and Tribunals in which there is a palticipation of The department concerned, In the opinion of this Court, this is a matter of public interest in which interference in ordinary manner is not called for. Where a Cell of such a nature should be established and where it shall work more facilitating the'ldispensing ofjusiice is a subject matter of complete dominion of State and unless the State has exercised any jurisdicu'on not vested in it by law or has transgressed any provision of law or has passed an order obligatory and effecting rights of the parties, it does not warrant interference from a court of law. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for quashing of the impugned order date 30.06.2005 (Annexure-P/ 1) and the petition so far as, it relates to prayer for quashment of the impugned order stands dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the petitioners are senior persons and if they are also transferred from Raipur to Bilaspur along with establishment of Legal Cell, it shall cause great hardship to Ll ‘ 7 43' them and their family and the education of their children, who are said to be studying at Raipur, shall also be aifecmd. H6 also submits that so far as the matter in relation to the transfer of these employees are concerned, an opportunity may be granted to them for making a representation to the concerned authority and the concerned authority may be directed to dispose of their representation in an objective manner on some early date so that they may remain at Raipur instead of Bilaspur. In Light of the above submissions, so far as transfers of the petitioners are concerned, a liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation to the concerned authority and if such a representation is tiled within a period of 15 days from today, the concerned authority is directed to dispose of their representation in accordance with law as early as possible preferably Within a period of one month from the date of filing of the said representation. t is made clear that no liberty is granted to the petitioners to question the legality of order transferring the Cell from Raipur to Bilaspur dated 30.06.2005 (Annexure—P/ 1) and their representation shall be restricted to their personal transfer from Raipur to Bilaspur. th the aforesaid observations, the petition stands finally disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. No, 2644 of 2005 also stands disposed of. Sd/— Certified copy as per miles. v Sunil Kumar Sinha v- w v Judge vatti r ..**. 3 Wi