C€ (2)27 ‘IE; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR J ( i x M: r N _WRITAPPEALNO. Lg /2010 in. APPELLANT . PQHHOMV‘: / Vinod Kumar Yadav, S/o Parshuram Yadav, aged about 46 years, occupation-service, R/o Charcha Colliery, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through— the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Schedule Tribe . and Schedule Caste Development, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Baikunthpur, RESPONDENTS / &%vh&%§ q/ Development, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 g 1 1 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT, gAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006. ARISING OUTOF ORDER DATED 01.02.2010 PASSED BY TI-E L /V 1,— I HON’BLE IN W.P. (S) NO. 7330/2009 “VINOD KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF CG. AND I. if r OTHERS” W (em9- / f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILARPUR Wn't Appea} No. 65/2010 Apyellant Vinod Kumar Yadav Vemus Respondsnts State of Chhatu‘sgarh 8a othexs WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2‘1! OF THE CHHATTKSGARH HKGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Jusn‘ce I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Mr. Jusu'ce Prashant Kumar Mishxa, JJ Shn‘ A. N. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Geneml with Shri S. K. Mishra, dvocam for the respondents JUDGEMENT ( Passed on this 26th day of Mamh, 2010) 1. . This appeal has been nled against the impugned order dated 1.2.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7330/2009 ( Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Chhatu'sgarh 85 others) . The sole gievance of the appellant is that while making pmmotion, he was posted by onder dated 23. 10.2009 at Govt. Higher Secondary School Chamha Colliery, Block 'Bajk‘unthpur, District Korea but later on, by the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 the place of posting of the appellant was changed and he was posted as Lectuler (Political Science) at Government Higher Secondary School, Vishnupur, Block — Baik'imt'hpur. However, that does not 1 adect the promotion of the appellant. ' es“. 3. 'Since the appellant’s status has not been changed and only the ’place of posting has been changed, we nnd no illegality or I kimpropriety‘jn the impugned order dated 1.2.2010, passed by the A \_1 FSThakut iearned Single Judge. Therefom, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. However, this will not debar the appellant nom making i a repmsentan'on befom the authorin'es concerned. If such Iepmscntation is made, it will ‘be open for the authoritiss concerned no consider the same and take a decision at their own level. No older asto costs. Sd/— x sw— I.M.Quddllsl V i It" ‘ Prashant Kumar‘M'lshra M , ,: Judge ”Vi r . Judge Q