”AL) \Dgj/ (9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Versus /1. RESPONDENTS /4- w.P.(S) No. .Xgwof 2011 / Vinod Kumar Sahu, S/o Ramlal aged about 37 years, R/o Village-Urgai, Post— Sonhat, Distt.—Koria, Chhattisgarh. of the State through Chhattisgarh Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, Distt— Koria, Chhattisgarh. Block Education Officer, B10 ck— Sonhat, District— Koria, Chhattisgarh. $§§i£i£ mm @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Panchayat, Koria, Distt— Koria, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, HIGH C01 JRT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BI] .ASPUR : r j WRIT PE'l‘ITION (S) No. 1270 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri? J. Present: Shri Sameer Kujur, Advocate for the pethioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemmenl Advocate fur the Side/respondent No. 1 and 4. None for the respondent No. 2 & 3, despite service ofnotice. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 01 day of September, 201i) The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugled order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexm'e P/l) transfen‘ing the petitioner, working as Shiksha Kanni, Grade II, at Middle School Kailashpur, to Middle School, 'I'aujarag on the ground of rationalization after declan’ng him surplus, is bad in law as the same has been passed by the Chief Executive Omcer (for short 'the CEO ’), Jila Panchayat, Koria. 2. Shri Kujur mrther submits that the memo dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure P/3), movides that for transfen‘ing of Primary and Pre— Middle School Teachers, who are declared surplus. there should be a committee at. Janpad Level comprising of CEO. Janpad Panchayat. as President, Block Education Odicer (Education Depamnent) as Member Secretary, Block Education Ohicer (Tribal Welfare Depaitment) as Secretary: Block Resource Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, and one representative of Nagar Palika/Nagar Nigam as Members. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents on 07.03.2011 and the notices have duly been served upon the respondents 2 and 3. The respondent. No. 2 and 3 Le. CEO, Jila Panchayat, Koria and CEO. Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, have chosen not. to appear before the Court. nor have tiled any return. PETITIONER : Vinod Kumar Sahu. VERSI IS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhanisgarh & Othets. (w? Shri Sac: learned Govemrnent Advocate appealing for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 4 submits that it. appears that the respondent No. 2 has not followed the guidelines as provided in memo dated 23.032009. This is for the respondent No. 2 and 3 to explain. On consideration of the submieeion made bv learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No. l and 4, as well as on perusal of the documents, particularly the impugred transfer order, it appears that necessary requisite comminee as provided in memo dated 23.03.2009 was not constituted and the respondent No. 2, on his own has passed the impugled order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) under the garb of rationalization policy. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that. the transfer order was not passed by a competent Committee. as aforestated, merits acceptance. Thus, the impugned transfer order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) is bad in law, lmjust and deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. Having regard to the facts situation ofthe case when it appears that the CEO, Jila Panchayat: Koriya, has driven the petitioner-to the Court by not complying with the provisions of law and further, he has not chosen to appear before this Court even atter notice, it would be just and proper to impose a. cost of Rs. SOOOI- payable by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. The said amount may be recovered horn the respondent No. 2. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. .f" Sd/-- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI , Judge