3 'O^ 1 ^.. '..-•-•^- ^^::' ^^ ftS1-'"" /T:..-'t" ^^^^} fi^- p;e Q'S-- i^n BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CGl WRIT PETITION ( S l N0.$y^- / 2011 ^ Bishun Deo Painkra S/o Patar Sai Aged about 44 years, hlead Master, Girls Middle School, R/o Bargidih, Block -Lundra ,District- Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chattissgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur ( C G ) 2. TahsHdar Tahsil Lundra (Dhourpur) District-Surguja (C.G.) ^ 3. Shiv dhari Painkra. R/o Parwatipur ,Block,Tahsil- District-Surguja (C.G.) w^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^"^^f^ /'€'^^ ^s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTIQN (S) N0, 557 OF 2011 Petitioner Resppndents Versus Bishun Deo Painkra The Sate of Chhattisgarh & Others •wsv-'n (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Present:- Shri B. ChaKraborty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Ad'.'ocate Gensra! and Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 31st day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counset for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-10-2010 (Annexure P/2) whereby he has beendirected by the Tahsiidar, Lundra (Dhourpur), District-Surguja, to undertake the work of verification and renewal of ration cards. 3. Drawing attention of the Court to Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short "the Act, 2009"), iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a prohibition of depioyment of teachers for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Pariiament, as the case may be. Learned counsel would further submit that verification and renewat of ration cards is not a purpose, which is permissible under Section 27 of the Act, 2009. 4. In view of the aforesaid legal proviston, it is directed that if the petitioner makes a representation before Coliector, Surguja, with a copy to the respondent No.2, within a period oftwo weeks, the said authority shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and on its own merits. 5. In the meanwhite. the respondent authorities shall not insist on execution of the impugned order dated 10-10-2010, as against the petitioner. 6. . With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ p'etition is disposed of. PrashantKumar Mishra Judge tE