r~~~\ i •^l^. ../ ^' ..;!?" -.-•' ^^' ..-••" << •„°•' y IN THEHON'BLEHiGHCOUftTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.PJSt No. 5^51 Of 2009 PETmONER /^ Smt. Geeta Gupta, W/o. Shri Yugal Kishore Gupta, aged about 45 years, R/o. 24/4, Civil Lines, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS : 11 State of Chhattisgarh, '^ Throiigh the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), :2) Head Master, Government New Middle School^ Kelabadi, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) :3) Commissiorier, Munieipal CorpOration, G.E. Road, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ^:4) Distriet Education Qf&cer, Durg,DistrictDyrg(C.G.) •^.J '.'••. • .•".•• WMT PETmON UNDE»^RTiCLE^226OF THE CONSTITUTION Oip INDVi ^<6.^^' 4^-f^^ "7 .•:''t^^f\ ~.-y .--"^••^•••"' »"»••'vW ..••' ^si A« f^.^ HIGH CO-JRT OF CHHATTiSQARH_:_B!LASPUR WRiT PETiTSON (Si NQ,43'!5 QF 200S PETiTiONER Smt. Jitenaer Lannba Versus State of Chhatasgarh & Others And RESPOS-iDEMTS W.P.(Si Nos.5931, 5448, S450, 5451, 5483, 5484,5485, 5S84, 575S, 5785, 5793,5805,5813,S81S, 5819, SS2Q, 5S2S, 583S, SS83, 5890, 5SS1,5018, 8094,6204,S339,33*5,S423,S438, 5290, 5S1S, 5533, 5578.5S11, 5SS1, 1-! 5SS1,5811,58-i 7, 5927, 5330,SS21 & SS22 of 2009. (Writ Petitions under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Ms Msera Jaiswai, Shri P.P. Sahu, Shri Mateen Siddlqai, Shri P.R. Patankar, Shri Manoj Paranjape, Shri Uttam Pandey, Shri C.u.K. Rao, Shri Roop Naik, Shri A.S. Rajput, Shri K.S. Pawar, Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Shri R.R. Soni, Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri Ashwani Shukia, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Yashwant Ssngh Thakur, Dy. Advocate Generai for the State of Chhattisgarh and its authorities. ORDER (ORALi (Passed on this 12 h day of November, 2009) 1. With the consent of iearned counse! appearing for ths parties, the petiuons are heard finaily. 2. !n this batch of matters it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the transfer orders have been passed without cornpiying with the policy and in some cases the orders having been executed also require reconsideration. 3. Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate Generai appearing for the StaSe, on instructions, very faifly submits that ali the casss of the petitioners pending consideration before this Court shaii be considered afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties CoFicerned, to examine asto whether the transfer -^~\\ 4. Gowri ordars havs been passed in accordance with the poiicy and tiSS that time the petitioners herein shaii not be disturbed. in view of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners nothing survives in these petitions for adjudication. Accordingiy, the petitions being W.P. (S) iS!os.431S, 5981, 5448, 5450,5451, 5483, 5484, 5485, 5584, 575S, 5785, 57S3, 5805, 5813, S815,5819, 5320,582S, 5839, 5889,5890, 5891,S018, S094, S2G4, 5339,6340, S423, S438, 5290, 5518,5533,5578, SS11,5SS1, 5591, 5811,5817, 5327, 5930, 5621 & 6S22 of 2009 are disposed of. However, on the basis of submission made by the iearned Dy. Advocate Generai, it is niade ciear that the petitioners herein shaii continue on their respective places of postins, as ootains today, tili disposai of their respective cases, in accordance with iaw and on its own msrits. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotti — Judge A<