IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUfg WRIT PETITION(S)NO. L\Qj{:;3~ OF 2011 TRANSFER MATTER Simgla gem” . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTTCLE 226 OF THE coNSTITUTTON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAE MANDAIvIus PROHIBITION AND/0R A SUITABLE DIRECTIoN OR ORDER TO Do JUSTICE IN THE MATTER V? R. Kuhrami S/O Late Shri Somaru Ram, ‘ Aged about 38 years, OOcupation — Head I Masten Primary SOhOOI Daler, Village and Post — Bhairamgarh, Sanjaypara, District — Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONEI; VERSUS OX" State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.KI S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Ralpur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development Department, Beejapur RESPONDENTS I 1. Beejapur, District (Chhattisgarh) The Collector, Beejapur, District — Beejapur‘(Chhattis‘garh) (a HIGH CGURT OF CHHAT'F!SGAR’H : BELASPUR WRET PETiTiON ($) NC. 4287 OF 2011 PETSTIONEE TR. Kuhmmi Versus RE$PONEDENT$ $ta£e 9f Chhattisgarh 8: Others {Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constiimion of ind§a) Singie Bench : Han‘bie SM Satish K. Agnéhotri, J. Present :- I $hri 3andeep Dubey, Advocate far the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advccate for the Siate. ORDER (GRAL) (Passed on this 04‘“ day of August, 201 1) $hri Dubey, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by order dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) was prornoteoi to the post of Headméster in Primary Schooi anti posted at Beiak Ashram Daier, Bhairamgarh. Thereafter. by impugned order oated ’5507’2611 (Annexure P—i) without iooking into the promotion of the petitioner. he was treated as Assisiant Teacher and transferred to Biock‘Usur, District Beejapur. Shri Dubey. further eu'omits that on aocooni of mistake in not correcting the oocuments. the petitioner is softering and no action has been taken against the officers, who are responsibie for not correoiing the documents by piaoing him as Headmaster, as he has been transferred atmost orie year back on the post of Headmaster. Shri Sao. teamed counsei appearing for the State respondents, as osuai submits that the petitioner may make a representation in this regard, without reaiizing the tact that it is not the ease of rejoresentation at the instance of the petitioner, who has been eutiering on account of the fa‘uit committee by the respondent authorities. Thus! why action‘shouid not he taken against the officers, who has not oorrected records within a reasonable time. C2? m 4. la View Gf feregaing, the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 {Annexure P4) in respeci of the peiitioner és quashed and it is c§i?ectec% that the appropriate authority shal! take action agatnst the erring effiaet, who has not cerrected‘the ciccumerite even after the prometion erder amt take apprepr§ate steps departmentaily against the efticer concerned. Accerdingty, the writ petttton is atlowed with cast quantifted to be a sum of Rs. 2500/- recoverabte from the offlcer, who has by his own mistake forced the netitioner to approach this Court. Sd/— U‘. ”? V , satish K. Ag‘nihon-i i " Judge \