® C’£‘/@Z, @ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, w ' AT BILASPUR éewioy mumr) WRIT PETITION Noggég /2006 PETITIONER / Smt. Devi Nisha Patel, W/o. Shri Santosh Kumar, Aged about 35 years, Working as Assistant Teacher in Government Girls Primary School, Shivni, Development Block Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS /,l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). The Principal, Government Girls Primary School, Shivni, Development Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Collector, District Janjgir~ Champa (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 WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHI-IA’I’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5368 of 2006 Petitiomar: Smt. Devi Nigha Patel Versus Raspondents: Sfata of Chhattisgarh 8:. oflmrs Single Bexmh: Hon’ble Mr. Justice $atish K. Agnihotri. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocatc for the petifiouer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the Respondants. O R D E R ( 9th OctobBr, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. z 1. The petitioner is working on the post of Assisfant Teacher in G Govemment Girls Primaly School, Shivni, Block- ‘ Nawagarh, District- Janjgir Champa. The District Education Ofticer has published a list in which the petitioner along with other teachers has been showal to be suqwlus and called for counseling for their transfer to a place, other than the present place of posting. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per t0 the Rationalization Scheme, 2006 in case of surplus teachers in any school, only the junior most teachers are to he included in the list of surplus teachers and they may be transietred in accordance with. the Scheme. Whereas, in the present case, there are many teachers, who are junior from the petitioners but their names have. not been included. in the list and the name of the petitioner has been included, which is contrary to the Rationalization. Scheme. W Rationalization of Teachers Policy dated 1.6.2006 provides for a statutory appaal hefoxe th€ compatent authority, In that viEW of the. matter, Earned counsel for the petitioner submits that tho petitioner may be allowad to make an appeal bofore the compatont authority and the competent authority may bo directed to considor and decide. the samo within stipulatod pariod. Learnsd counsei appearmg for the State] respondents has no objection to ~ / ‘ rx: this submission. . Since the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative mined}! available, therefore, he should prefer an appaal bofore the appallate authority and'the authority to consider the poiiits raised. by the petitioneiz . The time taken by the petitioner in filing thins appeal till its dispoSal shall be. condoned in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority. . On perusal of the papers, it iS clear that Clause 7 of the a \ With the direction aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. . Consequently M(W)P No. 4142/2006 also stands disposed of. . i Sdl- i 1 Satish K. Agnih’otri l Judge ;