HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH. BILASPUR SD WRJT PETSTgONiS)No.3378/2010 PEimONER RESPONDENTS 1 4 8 9 Dhaneshwar Kumar Nirmai, Aged about 56 years, S/o Late Shri Manglu Ram Nirmal, PresentSy working at Sankul Kendra Karyalaya, Madoda, Bhliaj, District Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Dlstrict Project Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shjksha Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Durg (C.G.) Principai, Government MiddJe Schooi, Secter-6, Bhllai, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) Charge Officer/Commlssioner and Nagar Chief Consensus Offteer, Municipal Corporation, BhlJai, District Durg (C.G.) Joint Director, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operatjons M.P. & C.G. Jangadna Bhawan, Jai! Road, Bhopa! Deputy Director, Government of India, Mlnistry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations Chhattlsgarh Camp Bhopal, Jangadna Bhawan, Jaii Road, Bhopal Commissioner, Pubiic Education, RaEpur (C.G.5 Director, Dlrectorate of Public Education, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Leei Singh Verma, Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Mlddle Schoo! Sector-6, Bhllai, District Durg (C.G.) ^—-^, €"^\ '*te&, J(i l ^^^ "^s&sssS 1 y/! WRIT PETITION (S) No.3378/2010 ?\ WRST PETSTION UNDERARTICLE 22@ OFJliE CQNSTSTUTSON OF SNDSA ^ Mr.Prateek Sharma, Counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. R. Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 on advance copy. Mr. S.S. Rajput, Centra! Government Counsel for respondents 5 & 6. "ORALORDER (12.07.2010) SUNiLKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner -Dhaneshwar Kumar Nirmal has chalienged the validity ot order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/1), whereby, respondent No.9- Leela Singh Verma has been posted as Sankui Strot Samanvayak in Sankul Madoda, Bhilai. Learned counsei tbr the petitioner submjts that the petitioner was working on the said post since 11.07.2003 and now, respondent No.9 has been posted there. The contents of the impugned order wouid show that the petitioner and respondent No.9, both were hoiding the substantive post of Upper Djvision Teacher and were substantialjy posted in Middle School, Sector -6. By holdlng the said substantive post and keeplng the posting in Middle Schoo!, Sector-6, the petitioner was also posted as Sankui Strot Samanvayak In the year 2003 and was looking after the work of Sankul Madoda, Bhilai. However, now, the assignment has been changed and respondent No.9 has been assigned the said work. In the above facts and cjrcumstances of the case, 1 do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the order dated 30.06.2010. The petition deserves to be and js accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge