c^ \^^ /-"- -sirie IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s) N0. Uo\?> OF 2009 PETITIONER Hemchand Sannad, son of Late Shri Sitaram Sannad, aged 33 years, Occupation-Service, Presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I at Government Higher Secondary School Siriyadih Balauda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Vs ^s RESPONbENTS €^ ^^ .^yy ^.y ' <i<y 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Schoot Education, Dau KQlyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. The Secretary, Department of Panchayat <& Rural Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, bau Kalyaan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 3. District Panchayat (Education), Raipur through its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /y 0 ^. ^-;«"-- '^^- .ii^ic—-? STt^r^tinw 7?Nt3fl^?^ti15F ^' -3^ ^i^i^^, yitil<y<i<s, |si<nji'H^< w^ *«i*^^{^^S^ 200^ ^tlEJ^?(^^) f^fWT^n^t^ SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB flRITINKBR DIWAKER 03.08.2009 Shri Malay Shiryastava, Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy, 0*4 cdunsel ChaUenge io. the present] 20.07.2009 passed by responde^it who is workiag as Shiksha Kam^i transferred froxn Goveranxenl Sidyadih., Baloda Bazar, Distt. Secondary School, Madhaibhata| Contention of counsel petitioner was appointed for fh^ hira fhere is no ofher teacher o) where he is presentiy posted, H| petitioner is said to have rationaUzation scherae but evei]j is, the petitioner cannot be contention is fhat fhe petitioEJ< Karmi Grade I on 11.8.2008 aa4 period, he should not have beenj Contention of coiinsel foij let fhe petitioner niake a sjuitable representation to fhe aufhorities conceraed which wt)uld be decided m accordaace wifh. law. To fhis proposition of fhe State counsel^ counsel for ^i^i^^Eii 'wp?ff ^ f^t€t>iN^tt ^atRmsflie for fhe petitioner, . for the State. petition is to fhe order dated No. 1 by which fh.e petitioner i Grade I (Economiics) has been Higher Secondary School, Raipur to Govemment Higher BUaigarh. &r fhe petitioner is fhat ftie Econoiaics subject and except fhe said subject m fhe school ls further contention is that fhe ibeen traiisferred under the tf fhis schenie is applied as it as a surplus teacher. His was appoiated as Shiksha till coxnpletion of his probation traasferred. fhe respondents/State is fhat trebted ofler "v^ XI-HC—78 'ysT T<ii^i(n<4, ^Ti1^4i(o, (<i<yii-H'j,< ._. „..:„/ U'P-t^^fii^l N14^18 (b*S8«!b------------^ ^H^T 'q^T (^qf^^) ,^ 311^1 ^?T i^N* TI^T ^IT^I '^?W ^- ^ '^ITW^^^lt^i fhe petitioner showed his iateriin protection tiU the decided by the aufhorities agreeijient. repr^sentatio conceibied. Accordmgly fhe petition i^ that iffhe petitioner inakes a conceraed withia a period of ten | copy of fhe order, fhe auth.oritijes same wifhia a furfher period of receipt. Till fhen fhe order impu^ned so far as it relates to fhe petition4r, disposed of with a direction rdpresentation to fhe aufhorities |lays froiii fhe date of receipt of concemed shall decide fhe Ijhree weeks froia fhe date ofits shatl be kept in. abeyaixce <^^Sd^"l W^ ^ ft^t' ^N^R iT3tRR^?T^T However, he prays for an ttion of fhe petitioner is Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge S1