Wfh B a&i y (w-y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Suni! Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Writ Appea! No.277/2011 Appellant (Petitioner) Respondents H.K. Kurrey, S/o. Late A.R. Kurrey, Aged about 41 years old Qecupation - Government Job post on Lecturer at District Education & Training Institute Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (CG) Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through it's the Secretary School Education Department DKS ihawan Raipur (CG) 2. The Director Lok Shikshan Sachanalay Raipur (CG) 3. The Director State Counci! of Education & Research Training Raipur (C-G) 4. The District Education Officer District Kabirdham (CG) Present: Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State on advance copy. O R A L O R D ER (20.06.2011.) Petitioner H..K. Kurrey has filed thls appea! against order dated 18.02.2011 passed in Writ Petit'on (S) No.3072/2010. By the writ petition, the appeilant mainly ciaimed for direction +0 the respondents to consider his name for promQtiQ" to the higher post in Schooi Education Department. Learned Single Judge he!d that tii! date the appellant was not absorbed in the Schoo! Education Department and he is an emptoy of Tribal Welfare Department. 2. Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was initially appointed in the Tribal Welfare Department and in the year 2006; he was transferred in a school belonging to School Education Department. Therefore, on one hand, his name was not considered for promotion on account of his non-absorption in School Education Department and on the other hand he was also not promoted in Triba! VVelfare Department. 3. On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. The fact remains that the appellant was not absorbed in the School Education Dspartment. 4. I" vlew of the above facts, Shri Maheshwa" submits that the appe'lant rnay bs permitted to fi!e a representation before concerned authorities Qf Schooi Education Department for his absorption and the authorities may be dsrected to dispose of his representation. He refers to an order (policy) dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure-P/4) issued bythe SchQQl Education Department. T.his iimited prayer, at this stage, is notQpposed by learned counse! ^k fc'r ths StaSs. 7. Accordin.gly, the appel'ant is permitted to fi!e a representation before the concerned authority of School Education Department for his absorption in the department and if such representatio" is fited, the same shall be dlsposed of by the authority in accordance with lav.'. -Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. SHABMA. Judge