- Lcs-^) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. OF 2011 PETITIONER ^ A^>Ayr ^^•^^••'.....•• ..^y ^^p'"" VERSUS <&'' ^•i- RESPONDENTS -:1 2. 3. ^ 4. 5. Sunil Kumar Gupta, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Shivdas Gupta, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School Bauridand, Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh Distt. Korea (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA '\A^~~^ HIOH COl TOF CHHATrrSOARH AT BH.ASNJR PETTTIONER WRIT PETmON (8) No. 1612 of2011 Simil Kumar Giipta. RE8PONDENT8 VF.R8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PE'nTION UNDER A&TICLE 226/227 OF THE CONS'nTUTIQN INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmlhotri, J. Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate forthe petitioner. ihri Arun Sao, Goveminent Advouate fur (he No. 1, 2 and 5. None forthe respoadentNo. 3 aud 4, despite s OBBKRffMAI^ (Passed on 01Et day ofSeptember, 2011) The grievance ofthe petitioner is that the impugaed wder dated 14.01.2011 (Annexiu-e P/l) tranrferring the petitioner, werking s» Upper Division Teacher, at Middle School Bauridaad, t®MidcUe School, Paradol, on the ground of rationalization after declarang him siirplus, is bad in law as the same has been passed by the Chief Executive Qffica- <for short 'the CEO'), Jila Panohayat Koria. Shri Pawar fiirtha- submits that the meme dirted 19.05.2010 (Aamexiire P/3), provides that for transferrme of Priminy and Pre- Middle School Teachers, who are declared stsrplus, tfaere shoitld be a committee at Janpad L«vel comprising of CEO, Janpad Panchayat as Presideirt, Block Educafion Offieer as Membw Secretary, Block Resource Coordmator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mi&sion, and one represet(te»tive ofNagar Pat&a/Nagar Nigam, as Members. - ; u, . ..>, - ; ' Notices were issued to the respondeats on 25.03.2011 and the aotices have <h)!y been served upon the respondente 3 and 4. The respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. CEO, Jila Panchayat, Koria and CEO, Janpad Panohayat ManendragaA, have Aosen-aot to appear befbre Ifae Court nor have filed any retam. - •2-- Shri Sao, leamed Govemmeirt Advocate appearing fw the State/ respoadent No. 1, 4 and 5 submits Aat it appears that the respondent No. 3 has not foliowed fhe guidelines ag provided in memo dated 19.05.2010. This is for the respondent No. 3 and 4 to wsplam. On CQasideratioa of the submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondetrt No. 1, 2 and 5, as well as cn perosal ofthe documents, particiilariy tfae impugied traasfer order, it appeare that aecessary requisite conmrittee a.s prowded in memo dated 19.05.2010 was not constittrted and fhe respondeat No. 3, on Us own has passed the impugied order dated 14.01.2011 (Anaexiire P/l) imder Ihe garb of ratioaalization policy. The .-"?... . - contention of learued couusel appearing for the petitioaer that tfae transfer order was not pa»ed by a competent Comnrittee, as aforestated, merits acceptance. Thus, tfae impugied Iransfe order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) is bad in law, imjust, and deserves to be and is accordit^iy quashed ia respect ofthe Havins Ifae CEO. Court bv has not re res facts stoation oflfae case when it appeare tiiat Jila Panchayat, Koriya, has driven the petitioaerto the complying with the provisions oflaw and fiirther, he to appear befbre tiris Court evens^afler aotice, it and proper to impose a cost ofRs. MKX>/- payable by No. 3 to tbe petitioaer. The said anioucst B»ybe <o.3. . .. :.*..:.,.-: 7. In view ofthe above, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. _^:"_— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit