Silngte E IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0.ll^41 / 2011 PETITIONER -s^- ,•*" '"' .-<*•' ^•••' RESPONDENTS : ^^€ ^.^^ sy 'Bhagbali Dhruv, S/o Late Shri Shoba Ram 49 Yrs, Head Master, Government Primaiy School, Madanpur, Block - Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) VERSUS 1) " State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Education Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2) The Collector, Bilaspur-(C.G.) 3) ' The Block Education Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L -=. i! i lUNtK RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR ^^.'SSIT' r3!^T:"'^^M ;'G;\ ^J-"^ .^QSSS -'^'^' •nsrL.J< VVKI 1 ^c 11 i 1UN (b) NU. 4^?b^ U;~ ZU11 Shagbali Dhruv VfcfSLif^ Ci+.sf^ ^~..? /*"-"-, ^s<5-~:.£'^-STW .??. ?"*.•'•;i ,-•..,•" oiciis o'i ^nn'a.s.u'sQisfn <u ^i.He'f (Writ Pstition under Arti-sie 226 of the Consfltution of india) Single Bsnch : Hon'bie Shri Sstish K. Aanihotri, u. Shri Prafti! tn'I )( I I ) <-tiafuii Bharat, Advocate for th®pstitioner. Shri Shashank Tnakur, Panei Lav/ysr for the Stats. sp.^s? /r^o.^1 \ \t.fr"^j ~\ \~i^i'\r~\if^f (Passed on this 27'" day of August, 2011) 1. Shri Bharat, isarned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits thst the pstitioner by order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) was oromoted to the oost of Headmaster in Govt. Primarv Schooi SViadanpur, Biock Munge!i. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) without iooking into t'ne promotion of tns os?siionsr, ns vy'ss irsBTsa ss i sacnsf snci i.rsnsisrrsQ Hi'ii'Tisry' iscitOoi i^3nosny3 jnsp, fcsiocK r'sinsriys- 2. Shri Sharai. further suomits that on account of mistake in not coiTectinu the documents, the petitioner is Sulfering and no action has bsen taken against the officers, who are responsibie for not correcting the docurnents by piacing 'nim as Headmaster, as he 'nas been ti'ansferi'ed aimosi three years back on the post of ^^SQmSSIcF. 3. Shri Thakur, iearned counssi appearing for the State respondents, ss usuai submits thaf the isetitioner may make a representation in thts regard, without rea!isins the fact that it is noi the case of representation at the instance of the petitioner, who has been sufferina on account of the fauit commltted bv the resoondent auihorities. Thus, whv sction shouid not be iaRen against the officers, who has noi correctsd r&cords withln a rsasonsble time. y s !n view or foregoing, the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annsxure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed and it is directsd that the appropriate authorifr/ sha'i take action againsi the errinq officsr, who has not corrected the documents even after the promotjon oraer and take appropriate steps dspartmentaiiy against the officer concerned. However. iibertv is resen/ed to the State Ashsst rsspondents to transTer tne peOtioner, IT so aavisea, administrativs exigencv or Dubiic interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 2500/- rscoverabie from the officer, vmo has by hls own mistake foreed the petitioner to approach this Court. J"~'~ Sd/- ^TISH K. ANGNfflOM Judge -1