Single Beach ^ 'f'ac'2-- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.4^33/2006 PETITIONER ....-iy^ .••'\.'5> Smt. Himkumari Meshram •" Aged about 38 years, W/o. Shri Atma Ram Meshram ^ R/o. Annapurnapara, Kanker, ..••l^q?' ^>y> ^>\"^" ./•" <^%^r..--""' ..--"'^.^" <?'<^$>> y RESPONDENTS /•' ) ^^ .cpt ^' S-l 1. District Kanker (C.G.). Working as Assistant Teacher in Government Priniary School, Kanker (Practicing). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, •' Through the Secretary, Schbol Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur (C.G.). 2. The Dista-ict Education Officer, District Kanker (C.G.). 3. The Principal, Government Primary School, Kanker, Distodct Kanker (C.G.) 4. The CoUector, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS.ORDER/ORDERS.DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS IN NATURE OF WRITS OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRTTO£LIKENATURE ETC. -^. XI-HC-22 3^'SMRTO, Qifl'M'Ko, laKII'Hy 3TI^?T4Tlth / wmwgwT^""""""""""""' Rre^ sn^i^r ':TR;sn^T am^flfsa' Soma an^[T?Taiw^fg(T ^gwz urider Mr. Saurabh Jaiswat, counselj Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy Gji on advance copy. Heard both the counss!. By the instant writ petition India, the petitioner has challeng^d passed under the rationalization Clause 7 of ths rationalizatioj aggrieved teacher. Learned counsel for the pet aiready preferred an appeat befoi|e impugned transfer order, same is"p4n Director. Having heard learned counsef facts and circumstanees of the casel, of the Sega! remedy avaiiable t6 her] appeal under clause 7 of the rati4 Education and learned counsel for| preferred by the petitioner is not the Director, Education is directed tcj within a period oftwo weeks from the] With the direction aforesasd, Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.No.3^ Parties are entitled for.certffiec) +1^41-1 iiKitTfftecittRi<^i< ^srf^TW^T 'or the petitioner. 'vt. Advocate for the State/respondente, Article 226/227 of the Constitution of her transfer order dated 29-7-2006 sch^me. ji scheme provides tor an appeai by the titioner submits that the petitionsr has , i|e the Dirsctor, Education against the is'p^nding and it is not being decided by the b^ing for the 'parties and having regard to the sjnce the petitioner has already availed iagainst the impugned order by filing an ^naiization scheme before the Director, the petitioner submits that e appeal decided by the Director, Education, decide the appeat fi!ed by the petitioner |date of receipt of a copy of this order. petition stands disposed of. 175/2006 ateo stands disposed of. 1 copy of thte order. -—^3—- Sd/- L.C. BhadoQ trie %0.