IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. éQéLOF 2008 /,7 PETITIONER S :1. ESPONDENT181 : 1. f, c 'JW/ Chhattisgarh Rajya Karmachari Sangh Through the Vice President, Shri S.K.$. Gautam Kangoli Dharampura Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G;) Chhhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress, Through its President, Shri RD. Tiwari, Vivekanand Ward, Hat Kachora, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. [C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Govt. of Chhattisgarh R v D.K,S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) I g! gigv@ ‘ 3. / Commissioner ’ 6% /§ v/V I / Pension Bada, Rainur (C.G.) 4. Commissioner I i Tribal Welfare Department University Complex x Raipur (C.G.) 5. f’ Collector, Bastar District, 7 / Jagdalpur. .6. Asstt. Commissioner_ Q/ Tribal Welfare Department Colleetorate, Jagdalpur y’ ‘ District Education Officer, Collectorate Premises Bastar Distt, Jagdalpur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I W \ j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6862 of2008 PETITIONER(S) : Chhattisgarh Rajya Karmachari Sangh & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh 8: Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, 'Panel Lawyer for the State/raspondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12B; day of Mitch, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs: “i. Call for the entire record pertaining to the merger of school under the School Education Department to the Tribal Welfare Department. ii. To hold that the said action ofthe State Government in merging the schools in the Tribal Areas under the School Education Department to the Tribal Welfare is bad in law, arbitrary and illegal. iii. To hold that the Government should not have taken such a decision as it adversely affects the interest of the members ofthe petitioners union. iv. Further to please hold that the teachers and other staff of the school Education Departi tent would remain in the School Education Department itself and their absorption to the Tribal Welfare Department only can be done on option by the respective employees. V. To declare the action ofthe respondents in merging the schools under the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission into the Tribal Welfare Department as bad in law and further direct the respondents to restore the schools under the “Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission as it stood prior to the merger of the same in the Tribal Welfare Department. vi. To direct the reSpondents to provide the administrative and financial control of the schools of the School education Department in the Tribal area to the School Education Department itself instead of the Tribal Welfare Department. vii. Any other relief as deemed tit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners were initiaHy appointed in the School Education Depaitment zmd subsequently in accordance with the policy decision of the erstwhiie State of Madhya Pradesh, all the schools run by the School Education and located in the tribal areas, were transferred to the Tribal Welfare Department and the staE working in these schools was transferred on x . deputation to the Tribal Welfare Department and similarly, the schools‘ situated in non~tribal areas, run by the Tribal Welfare Department, alongwith the staff were transferred to the School Education Department. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 10m March, 2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3437 of 2008 (CLChandmkar (£2 Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Thus, the instant petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. liberty is granted to the petitioners to exercise their options, if so advised, pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2010 (Aimexure R/5). In that event, the State authorities shall consider the cases ofthe petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation/option, ifany. 5. No order asto costs. . Sd/- Saush K. Agnihotril Judge Amit