p'^$?^,,^ BEFORETHEM.R STWTEADMINISTRAnVETRlBUNl|LBENC^^|UR OA. N0. J2Q02 ^.:^/')/!''/' ^'s/'?') APPUCANT '4 NON-APPLICANTS Shri Ram Bhandari Son ofShri Gadaram Bhandari Upper Dh/ision TeaCher, Govt. HigherSecondarySchool, Kirgi Distt. Rajnandgaon VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh ttiroughttie Secretary School Education Department D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur 2. The Prindpal, Govt. H.S. Sdiool, Kirgi Distt. Rajnandgaon ORIGJNALAPPUCATION UNDERSECTION 190FTHEM.P. STATE ADMtNISTRATIVETRJBUNALACT. 1985 HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PBTITION N0.647 OF 2003 Petitioner : Kuber Singh Sahzi Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PBTITION (S.t N0.4585 OF 2005 Petitioner Respondents Versus Shri Raia Bhandari State ofChhattisgarh & Other 8INGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICB SATI8H K. AGNIHOTRI Shii P,K.C. Tiwari, Senior couiisel wifh Shii Aviaash K, Mishra, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 647/2003. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Goveranient Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 647/2003. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the respondent No.5 inW.P. No. 647/2003. None for the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 4585 of 2005. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the respondents/State in W.P.S. No. 4585 of2005. ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 31st ofjuly, 2006) 1. The prcsent writ petitions, beiag Writ Petition No.647/2003 aad Writ Petition (S.) No.4585/2005, involve common question of law as to posting ia School Education Department. Thus, bofh fhe petitions are beiag disposed of by this coinmon order. I^WK®6' IIINI?li<<^ 2. The petitioner Kiiber Singh Sahu in Writ Petitioa No.647/2003 (herciaafter rcferred to as 'the petitioner^ was originally appointed as Teacher ia Tribal Welfarc Departnient of the then State of Madhya Pradesh on 3.7.1982. The petitioner Shri Rani Bhaadad (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.5') in Writ Petition (S.) No.4585/2005 was appointed as Teacher ia School Education Deparbaient. The petitioner was fhereafter pronioted to the post of Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 7.8.1998. 3. According to leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, the petitioner and rcspondent No.5 submitted joint application for iniitual ex-change oftheir respective departmeuts vide Annexurc P-3. It appears that the petitioner belongs to Tribal Welfare Department aad rcspondent No.5 belongs to School Education Department. Pursuaat to fhe said appUcation, ttie Goverament, by order dated 16.1.2002, posted fhe petitioner m Govemment Higher Secondaiy School, Kirgi, Distnict Rajnaadgaou, of the School Education Deparfaaient aad rcspondent No.5 was posted in Goverainent Higher Secondaiy School, Kaudikasa, Distnct Rajnaadgaon of Tribal Welfare Department. Subsequentty, by order dated 4.1.2003 (Annexure P-1), the District Education Officer, Rajnaadgaon was rcquested to rcpatdate fhe petitioner to his origiaal departnient i.e. Tribal Welfare Department. By order dated 3.2.2002 (Annexure P-2), District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, wrote to fhe Pruicipal, Higher Secondaiy School, Kii^i, stating that the oider dated 23.11.2002, whereby respondent No.5 was posted in Govemraent Higher Secondary School, Kaudikasa, Distdct Rajnsmdgaon ofTribal Welfare Departinent, stands canceUed. It was farther stated fhat fhere is no order for transfer of the petitioner. Pursuant to status quo order with regard to posting ofrespondent No.5, dated 8.3.2002 passed by the State Admmistrative Tribunal, rcspondent No.5 continued ia fhe School Education Department. 4. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits fhat fhe petitioner aiid rcspondent No.5 are contmiiuig ia their respective Schools offhe School Education Department. 5. On query, Smt. Anju Ahuja, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate, submits on the basis of letter dated 28.7.2006 of Distact Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, addressed to her that the State Govemment has no objection, if the petitioner aad rcspondent No.5 are allowed to contiaue ia fhe School Education Department. 6. In view ofthe fraak and candid submission ofleamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State Goveniment, ^) r:* !' fhat the State Govemment has no objection if the petitioner and respondeut No.5 coatinue in fhe saxne Department, i.e., in the School Ediication Departoient, where fhey are working at present, it is not necessary for this Court to go iato fhe validity aad con-ectaess of fhe order dated 4.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) and 3.2.2002 (Annexurc P-2). 7. For the reasons above-stated, bofh the petitions are aUowed, No order as to costs. 8. A copy of fhis order be placed in the rccord of the connected writ petition. -—-— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge G uri