1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATrISGARH) WRIT PETITION s No. 599% OF 2006 PETITIONER : Smt Reeta Kujur, Wife of Shrl Parmeshwar KUJur aged about 35 years, Presently workmg as Assistant Teacher Middle School Bhafauli, Block Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of ChhattisgarhM’ Through: The Secretary, Department of School Education . D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Secretary,/ Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 5. The Assistant Commissionerp Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). x w (@h RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W @ HI$H CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH: BILA5PUR 5ing!e Benth: Hon'ble Shri satish K. Agniham, J. W. P. (5) No. 59$6 af 2006 Pefifioner Smt Ream Kujur Versus Respondenfs : S'l'a're of Chha'h‘isgwh & Omers 5hri Bhaskar Payashi, ccunsel fo'r The pefifioner, 0 R D E R (6?“ Navember, 200$) 1. Tha pgfi+ianer was employed as AS$is+gm Taachar in Middie Schaai, Bhafuuli, 8iock Ambikapur, Disfric‘? Surguja. By impugned crdar‘ dafed 30.6.2006 (Annexure P/Z), fhz pafi+inner was fmnsferr‘ed from Mddle Schooi, Bhafauli, Bbck Ambikupur to Middia SzhooL Kundcwusfi, Bbck 5umjpur‘ 2V Being aggrieved, ihe pe'l'i'iianer had filed a wri'i pe‘fi'i'icn being W‘P‘ (s) Nc‘ 4398 of 2Q06 chaiienging The validi'i’y cf ihe impugned 'i’mnsfer‘ arder timed 30.6.2006‘ This Cam-r, after hearing ieurned counsel for the pe+i+ianer and learned counsei for 'H'ie respondents/5mm, if was nonced 'Hm‘l' The pe+i+ioner had already moved an dppedl aligning? ihe impugned fransfer order before The Commissiener, Tribal Development Raipur (respanden'l' No. 3 fherein). The Cour"? accordingly dired’ed The respondent No, 3 Therein, 1'0 decide ‘lhe appeal filed by lhe pefi‘l'ioner wi‘f’nin ‘lw’a weeks frcm The da‘fe of receip'? a Copy af ‘lhe order‘ / @ 3. The pafi‘?ioner has fiied fhis pei'i'?ion dimlenging fhe same crdgr again, which has already been cansider'gd and dgcided by this Ccur‘r in W.P.(s) No. 4398/2006. This is a bla'ran? misuse of ‘i’he judicial process. The pefi‘fioner is nof permi‘Hed 1'0 challenge 'i‘he same order because The same cause 9f ac‘i'ian has aimedy been censidered and decided affer' hearing baih ’rhe parties, In This pe‘ri'iion, for misuse of 'H'ie Judicial pracess +he pefifioner shouid be saddled wi‘ih some cast 4. Accerdingly, +his wrif pefi‘rioh is dismissed wifh casf of Rs. 2000/-. The c951” be depasi’Fed wiihin a periad 9f Twa weeks from ioday in fhe High Cauri' Legal Aid CommiH’ee. Sd/— . Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Bablu ‘