c^f- ^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^?^ /2011 PETITIONER ^' RESPONDENTS ^ x^,0 .^^•r »^y'^ ^%> ^''. ,.^ ^\.^ <^-'y^ -3V U'odhi Ram Sahu S/o. Shri Sunder Lal Sahu, aged about : 43 years, R/o. A/1660, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Township, Jamnipali Korba, bistrict: Korba (C.6.). VERSUS 1. Divisional Secretary (Sambhag Sachiv), Saraswati Shiksha Sansthan, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Saraswati Vihar, Khel Parishar, Behind Engineering College, Malaband Sendri, (Koni) Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.). 2..' The Vyavasthapak, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Pragati Nagar (N.T.P.C.) Korba, bistrict : Korba (C.G.). 3. ^ The Principal, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pra9ati Nagar, Korba, bistrict: Korba (C.6.). 4.' The Secretary, Sarveshwar Shikshan Samiti, Jamnipali, Korba, District: Korba (C.6.). 5. State of ChhattiS9arh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Oistrict : Raipur (C.&.). 6. The District Education Officer Korba, District: Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INblA . "^^.""-—^^ ^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4360 of2011 Jodhi Ram Sahu. VERSUS Divisional Secretary & Others. RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. QRDERIQRAL) (Passed on 05th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Acharya at Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Pragati Nagar, Korba, has been transferred to Lormi, District Bilaspur. 2. The sole contention of Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred to more thaii 250 Kms. away. The petitioner is a low paid employee. Her daughter is studying at Korba and he would face great hardships if he is forced tojoin the new place ofposting. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is an employee ofa private educational institution and the State has no interference with their intemal arrangements. 4. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. On pemsal ofthe documents, it appears that the petitioner is not an employee, either of the State Govemment or the Central Govemment, but is an employee of a private society ninning FU^ •.^'.^^ y^^ -:r"%« '^ . -,.. .,1"' .if educational institutions in various districts, The petitioner has not produced any document which indicates that these institutions are under the direct command and control ofthe State Govemment or whether they are being funded by the State Govemment or by the Central Govemment. It appears that the State of Chhattisgarh has been made a party in this petition just to bring the petition within the pur^iew ofArticle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Further, the petitioner has not produced any mles, regulations goveming seMce conditions ofthe petitioner. Even there is no averment with regard to policy, mles or guidelines in respect of the transfer and posting ofthe employees ofthe aforesaid society. The relevant materials, as aforestated, are not available in the petition, and for want of necessary pleadings and materials, no adjudication is possible. The petition appears to be vague and sketchy. Thus, for want of relevant material, no relief as sought for by the petitioner, can be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit