Q IN THE HONOURABLE CHHATTISGARH H1GH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BiLASPUR i Petitioner: Versus Writ Petition No. ^ f^~^ J 2002. President, Pradesh Sikshak Congress, Tahsii/ Biock: Dondilohara, District Durg, Chhattisgam. Respondents: 01. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: it's Principai Secretary, Department of'Schooi Education, ivlantralaya, Raipur, ^ , Chhattisgarh. "^^ °2- Additionai Secretary Department of Schooi Education, ^?v ,» Mantraiaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.. ^ .^y^ %^ ^ ^ ^°'>^ ^' 03. District Education Officer, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. 04. Sankui-in-charge/ Pricipal, Government Higher Secondary -Schooi, Don^itohara, Tahsif: Dondiiohara, District: Durg, Chha^te^arh. y./:'./ <^ ^ Writ Petition underarticle226 ofthe Constitution ofindla. -'_.^'__.^...._.._.______ XI-HC-22 T5?r v<ii^i<r<^, ^xil^Ko, faw^y 3nif?r ^ra? _.^.:..e;....e..o..:.l."1..^ WS^Wft^ '^!. 200': '^R^I' @ ^fi^r ^T 'RaN 5t»*-iicn «i^a <' 3?l^[ 'S^ITW ^fta 01.04.2003 Shri Raj Kainal Singh, co^uisel for the petitioner State by Shri Ranbir Sin^i, Govt. Advocate. Heai'd. By tms writ petltlon fll^ Constitution of India, petiti^ coinnianding the respondents t| whicti has been replaced by the| Petitioner submits that consideration introduced the S^nkiil •:^ powers to the Principals who that they can miderstaiid and teachers. The teachers are wel^j in touch with the Pruiciples and tlie grievance of the teachi^ig staff regarding clearing of their biUs eta, are redresse' manner. Now ftie State of Chfliattisgarh has abolished the Sankul System and introduced cbi^^l't ^W<rff^fet^ <Rn^i< i:r 3?rf^w srn^T ;d mider Artlcle 226 of the >ner prays for a direction reinstate the Sankul System old systeni ofthe yeai' 1987, 3ie State of M.P. after due system of 1997 and gave ^re the Sankul-in Charge so Ihandle the difficulties of the promptly in an ainicable the old system of system of [^^^ •^ XI-HC-22 W^T'^1 '{^N?^ll^ w^a '•<c-l-w '3:^i '^F!{?P^ ^tftwi^ {®lCT^tt< ^.^.:/...^>.l?^ "^ 28ft ^m<?(( »N(G|» fe^^ ^^i^^i^^r ^^ 1987 and the powers vest^d in Principles have been JOfficers who are already work transferred to Block Educationi loaded. It is subniitted that| teachcrs to rush to the office redressal of their grievaiices, wastage of their tune and moi^ey the interest ofthe teachers ancj submitted that Sankul Vyav; system of 1987 that has been order. The petltloner has not raised aay demand of justicj rushed to this court for redreslsal Having considered the case and material on record, the petitioner makes a detaile^ ei»k<({<rt<ft"i ^p-^tE "^ 'fe^t <R>I^H % 3it^N ^Sr it would be difficult for the of Block Education Office for whlch not only amounts to 3y, but would adversely affect students as well. It is further istha is stUl bett^- than ti-ie abolished by an unreasonable su^inltted any representation nor before the authorities and ffccts of its grievance. cts and circuiastances of the ofjustk;e wouM be served if representation albngwlth copy etids l^i^ XJ-HC-22 3:iT^r^r R'iicb 3?ff^r 5hill<=b ^fRn \^ j^l T^ v^i<4i<n^ ^xttwKo, f®«rtwy 3n^?r ^S^K H(»mi5ipn% " / "I^ST" 2DT <HI<;^1 ^<RW «Ra > of this. writ petition befpre redressal of its grievance. a detailed representation before respondent no. 1 aiid 2 of recelpt. of a lcopy of thls order and on such a representa|:ion being filed, the same shall early as possible preferably Let the petitioner nial^ alongwith a copy of this order within two weeks from the date be considered and decided a^ witilin 3 weeks froin the date <j adverse order is passed and aggrieved, he may challenge th^ same. Thls petition is disposed ^ aforesaid. Consequently, M.W.I stand disposed of. C.C. as per rules. <^k<<fa^iln nN<A ^ 1^^ <Rnt5cK ^? ^fff^cR 3T|^f ±ie competent authority for f representation. In case any the petitioner thereby feels f with the observation/llberty . 1810/03 and I.A.No.8474/03 ^ Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge I^ ^ [^^f^