CF0000115714 ^[^ './- z- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JU0ICAWRE AT BILSSPOR ( C.G.) WRTT PETITION N0.4 /'^^ OF 2001 BETWEBt 1. Manish 3irivastava S/o late Shri N.L.Shrivastava, aged31 years. Residentaf Bharamjalgartt Bi.strict Raigarfa. . 2. Gopal Agrawal S/o Sa<3hu Ram'Agrawal, ageel 29 years, Resident of Civil Lines, Eharamjaigarh Blstrict Ralgarh . 3. Qn Prakash spn of Mangal Sai Rathia, aged 35 years, Rssident of BharamJaigarfa, Member of Dlstrict Pandhayat,Saigarh . K\^ A^.:.-'A%5 / PETITICNBRS 1. ^ Itxe Sfcate of cilfl'iattisgarh, Through the Secretary Departmeaat of school B3ucatlon, D.K.Baildiag, Raipur. 2. 'Oie Eiireetor Incharge, Public Instructlons, Ghhat-tisgaA, Raipur. Di.strict Raipur. 3. Ihe Oollector, Raigarh, Distriet Raigarh.' Bi-strict Baucation QEficer, Eharamjaigarfa, Bducatlon Dlstriet Eharamjaigarh, Dlstrict Raigarh. RESPCNDKfTS WRIT PETITICM UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF 8 CCMSTITUTICN W IHDIA XE-KC-22 sn^i^i 'R;ri??3nt?i gTqwaftg ^sf ^Tirf=p?, ^"Fpre, t^-ra'y ___..^.,.f°...n.%.x......,^, ?n'?snw"""""'""" ^i. SllilT'g^OTWWs'^ id'^iT~? ^HCt! •4 ss'ci \t'^' ^ 3if?g-q 3TR<° ys UssNtiBi1^ 25.9.2001 Shri Sudhir Verma Counsel ^or tfae petitioner. Dr. N.K.Shulda leamed Dy. ^..G. for tfae respondents. Heard. By this petition slyling asjP.I.L. under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitionersj are raising s question fhat the District Edueation OfGce situated in Dharmjaigarh be not shifted to Raigarh,. It is suhmitted that the slufiing oftfae abo^ementioned oiBce to Raigarh is not in pubBc interest as it will adversely afit^ct the interest of Ifae tribal commumty ofthe area. Retum has besn ffled by the ptate. Dr. Shulda suhmits that Raigarh is a tribal district. He fiirther poin^ed out Ihat earBer Raigarh Revenue District consisted of 17 blocks and ^fter its bifarcation in May 1998 two i distriets havs been fonned -wz. I^aigarh and Jashpur. Raigarh was consisting of 8 blocks and Dhannjai^irh is one of the blocks. It is farfher 1 sulbmitted that in May 199S Jashpu^- also became a district. It is further subniitted that tfae District EducationjQfficer has full control ofthe entire districtandnotofanyblock. | i i ' Having heard counsel for flieiparties and considered fhe facts and circiunstances of <he case and materiil available on record, in our opimon [^?Rg^ cSiR:^i;l^i^iSli:t^*-'^^^i^^^^ XI-HC-22 STit^TqiT R;IRT3n^T ?E'£n^'gi^T[ i?"""';''~ s 6\ 'S^S ^TT^'T, ^rira'TS', 'praRiy STi's^T SCT9 t^V> ^PI"??!^'^'^''. ' """" ' """""".'"'^^ ' ^s^ ..-..........-.......................^^................................................ ,__ _,_ „^_„, 1 ^7Rrf?i^Ti' ^PT^ ^' f^'^f "cf'^SR aTOl^lTW^i^ | q"t<"'""^'^"^'t'"tsl< fhe decision to have seat of DistrictiEdueation Officer in the District head quarter and specialiy in view of tfaq facts and drcumstances to bave two separate districts constituted in Ms^ 1998 namely Raigarh and Jashpur Nagar, the matter is such where varipus factocs are taken into consideration and no material has beenplaced by th^ petitioner to show malafides& )ydMy.!!^vsV/tvwfw^. u '°^ It is further submitted that nursuant to this shifting of the District Education Office tfae interest of the ^mployees is going to be aifectsd. Dr. Shukla submitted tfaat so far as the eAiployees are concemed , they ars State employees aad wiB remain in di^trict and it shatl be better for the employees to make rqpresentation in (jase tfaey so desire. So far as the Class III and pass TV employees are concamed the State shaU consider their grievancesj , if any, on representation made by fhem individiiaBy. Having considered Ifae facts apd eircumstances ofthe ease we do not find any ground for interference in jexercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Public Ihterest Litigatiori. Fetition accordingly fails and as such the same is disnrissed. Security if depAsited, be refimded. _c\-. ^ __ —^—- ——— Sd/- Chief Justice Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge ...-\ illII I'll! IB Bia ii^^l tS