•B IS :NCH -_-^^ ^^f^L IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR W.P.No^6r-/2006 Petitioner I.K.Kulhara, S/o Shri R.KKulhara, Aged about 50 years, R/o Mahendrapur, Block Development Durgukondal, Distt. Kanker(C.G.) /f Respondents ,.•••* .^•••y7' -.•' ^><^/ ^?' .-•' < ^>.}'^ 0^^^-" .^•",,^y ^^ / ^y Versus ^-1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur ' (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Distt. Kanker(C.G.) Ao~ -^,-^.^;^^ n i-^'"5'^ "^'" *-..~<i!>. 4) '\^, ^i"& /^.. "^€y% to^^l W^M^ I The Collector Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) The Head Master, Government Middle School, Barbaspur, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) tVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA p^= ..'T~E XI-HC-78 t-TI+K'rT SbHrai 3^ '<<l<llcl''<, ®rn<1'l<o,Rldl<1^< «"*•"»«I***•**«**^ *=-*<-» ^-» «^-»* sn^rira^? (iqt^si^.r) STI^TqiTfSi^R, (raTsn^TgwR; y ?RTTW fl1^(T an^T 2(D06 Ite T8^7?006T- Shri P.R. Potonkar,counsei Shri So-t-ish Supta, Depu1[y respondents, on advance copy. 1-ieard both the counsel. By the instant petition, the order Annexure-P/3 dated 29-7-i Scheme declaring him as surplus, School, Mahendr'apur, Biock Block Koyaiibeda. Learned counsel for the order it has been shown that the own consent whereas, no such consi| But, the impugned ordi Rotionalization Scheme, 2006 and] an appeal if any teacher is agg competent authorit)/, therefore, to the petitioner. In the first ir|s availed of that remedy. In the circumstances, submitted thot the petitioner vi| appropriate authority under the be directed to decide the same. fjsr the petitioner. 6ovt. Advocate for the Stote/ Ipetitioner has challenged his transfer whereby under the Rafionalizotion has been transferred from Primary burajukondal to Primary School, Siksodh, chi<<'I<-i41-i wrat' ff fs^fv <Ri<-i;i< ^Srf^IT 311^1 pet|tioner submitted that in the impugned [tetitioner has been transferred on hts ;nt was given by him. fr has been passed under" the clause-7 of the scheme provides for jl-ieved by the order passed by the 4iually efficacious remedy is awilable ir|stance, the petitioner ought to have le|arned counsel for the petitioner (ants to fite an appeal before the ;hemeand the appropriate authority P.T.O. i ' . ^-.•.^''l' XI-HC-78 3:s?^[reR;ra', yTflti'Kc, Stcti+iy tirqpTI ai*TI^ W[ 200 •sn^Tq^^ (cpig^q') STI^T^irf^IT^ awsn^Tsbii'eb --c' Barve ^3^w STarwHfersn^r ~~ <L- However, smce time under and the petitioner has approached| as such, time taken by the petitior^er- petition till its disposal shall be co^i The writ petition is accordir|i itself. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.1 stand disposed of. Parties are entitled fpr certji :lause 7 fof filing an appeal 'is 7 days this Court by filing this writ petition, from the date of filing of this writ fdoned by the appropriate authority. •(gly, dismissed, at the admission stage ^378/2006 and I.A.No.79Z4/2006 Wlfg^ WRft'ff fei^t (RR?K ^sri^R'sn^r ified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Jiidge