HI6H COURTOF CHHATTESfiARH AT EELASPUR Writ Petition (SyNo. 3330 of 2008 Petitioner' Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Arpana Lal, W/o. 5hri Roshan Lot, aged about : SI years, R/o. Oak Bonglo Wurd &h!amtari, Tahsil iS Ciistrict Dharotwi (G-G^ State of Chhattiigoi'h, Through : Secretary, ^ Sd'woii • E<<ucation Department, O.K.S.- E|wiwun, Ruipur, BistriGtRnipyr(C6) Commissjoner, Pubiic' ~ Educarion Directorate Raipur', DiStfict Raipur (.C.6.) ',': •- .'•,^-:: ,.-', bistrict Education Offic&s', i>hamtari,6Js+r!ciDhamfar!(C.6.) WRTT PETnFION UNESER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTIQN (^INDIA Slngt®Bench : Hori'bleMr. Satreh K, Agnihotr'i, J. •w Shri Manoj Paninjpe, Advocate fop thepetitioner-. Shri YaAwant Singh Thpkur, tSepu'ty ^dvocatB fienehil for tha respondents-'' ; . ;''./•, ! ;'' • 1', ;,:• ; '•' : 1;1;';.^. .' 1:;.:'.. ':' ORALORbER ' /-.''^/-~ (Passeci on this 30th clayofJune^2Q08^;- 1. , With .the condent of ieam'ied. counael oppeaisig^fo^^He^)arties,^tii& , petH'jbnisheard'findlly. , ;'• •.,;'''' .1^:,,J':^;^;;1^':'':^:'':,;;'''''. ' : 2- The p^itioner hasfiledthisp^tuin.twii^iiggejevedby^e^ dat^ 16^.2008 (Ani >ttirBp/i),l^e by'thap^ tronsferred from Dhanitan to fanid. The^gruevance of the ••s"..^ r,;.:.;... J'ii"j-!':1k^"".wu^^ ^s. petitioner ia -that Ae is holding the substontiye post of Senior Lecturer and she has been tronsferred to a place tuhere the person holding the charge of the post df Ppincipal, namely Shri H. L Sinho, is much junior to the patitioner. Thus, the petitioner would be required to work under the ajpervision of her junior. 3. Lesmed Eliepirty Advocate Seneral, oppearing for the respondents/State .aibmits thot the petjtioner has alreqdy inade a represm'tation dated 20.6.2008 (Annexure P/3), which Aatl be considered and decided within a period of two weeks. 4. Leameci counse! (ypearing for tfce petitioner subnsits that at this sts^e. the petitioner does not uwnt •t'o press •thispetition on inerits, as learned counsel appearing of the respondents/S'tate has atready sybmitted that the representotion shall .be considered and decided uiithin a period of two weeks. 5. In view of the categoricol statetnent made by leorned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, nothing syrvives in this inatter. The petition is accordingly diqiosed of- No costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agaatotn Judge Thakur <£33w—^