t-?<.. c ,F'^a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCG) WMT PETITION N0. /2005 PETITIONER ^,^ J^ ^y'SEy^' ^••' -.•'\-<^.v .^^^ ^y Vinod Kuinar Mishra, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Jagatnarayan, Shiksha Karmi Warg III, presently Incharge of Ashram Adhikshak, Balak Ashram Tahakabada, Vikas Khand - Abujhamar Orchha, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^^x"^^ ^^^R 'C^UR"U' .•d *1ri<$s< ^ \ -1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.. The CoUector, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Block Education Officer, Block - Abujhamar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive OfBcer Janpad Panchayat, Abujhamar Orchha, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 5. Subhash Markam, Shiksha Karmi Warg III, Prrmary School - Gabari, Abujhamar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 0 s 1 0H» 1s ^^ IS3 (7i M 10 -~] Q•n ^ 1-1-1B <d-o°l •r<<IOI?}iy,U>-^lwK»;l6|WI'!iyX _._ i^.,?. <^°- sfc?0__._ HI*l?»l$P^Tq?""^"•'""""""""""""""" W^2QO\ 3IT^?T 'ra^R (>jc|{^c|<g) sn^^TwR'fl* gCT3irt?T**ii* 3'^iT8niHft?r an$?r 17.10.: Shri A.N. Bhakta, cou| Shri Pankaj Shrivastal I.A.No.8382/2005 This is an application Board. This application stan<| W.P.NO.4670/2005 <l>|t|T»<I1lll*inTit"ls':<3'<lu!t$t'( iRai)^T3n^<T isel for the petitioner. /a, P.L. for the State on advanee copy. for urgent hearing. The matter is taken up on s disposed of. The petitioner.who is| presently working on the substantive post of Shiksha Karmi and is also h<|)lding the charge of Adhikshak Balak Ashram, Tahakabada, Vikas Khand ^bujhamar "Orchha" Distt. Bastar (C.G), has challengedthepostingofre^ Ashram, vide order dated 221 respondent no.5 is posted ti the action of respondent no.^ ofthe said Balak Ashram is i1 In this writpetition, fo| pondent No.5 as Adhikshak of the said Balak 8.2005 issued byrespondent no 3. Acopy of the impugned order has beei|i filed as Annexure P-1. The submission of l^arned counsel for the petitioner is that if iere, the petitioner shall have to hand- over the charge of Adhikshakto r^spondent no.5. Lsarned counsel submits that in posting respondent no.5 as the/(dft/fohs^ ict in accordance with law. rthe reiiefs of above nature 1 do notfindthe locus-standi of the petitioijier to challenge the order of posting of respondent no.5 issued by |'espondent no.3. A co-employee cannot be allowed to challenge ths ori authority on technical grounc| Learned counsel far t| petitioner, who is holding ^ er of posting of another co-employee by an e petitiorier could not ppint out as to how the ubstantive post of Shish Karmi, would be $FyFS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 m*tvn^vfW \3T2qr^i«icx.i,u>-n|-M<i<»,(cic'n'<iy<( V->- t('- ^t,'?-o 3n^?tq^('j<lijst<£;) sn^CTcRrR'ii* <raTaii^STri'Hi<b \^° ./ A. g^liSR'nft?T3II^CT adversely affected by the imf: am not inclined to entertain The petition has no me Consequently, M.W .P. jugned order passed by respondent no.3. si^ch petition filed bythe petitioner. fitand the same is dismissed. |Mo3787/2005 stand.s disposed of. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha —---Judge <pi<<I»<I1i*ii*tnT4"fettsl'!Rl«l'< ^ai^isn^?! -^