6? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ( 2-92- QF 2006 SJOgIgBsnd PETITIONER ^k ^.-"\ ^^. ./-<'?\z?>' ...•-"f^$^t-y" ^y^ ^- RESPONDENTS ^ r^^^fd^ ^& ^^ 1. Vinod Kumar Sahu, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Shri Dukhiram Sahu, Resident of Village and Post Tanoud, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Director, Public Instructions, Raipur ^ (C.G.). 3. The Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) < 4. The District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). <^' 5. The Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa ^' U> (C.G.). 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (c.G.). ..»*"" • <? 7. Smt. Kamla Bai Sahu, Wife of Shri Samaroo Ram Sahu, * Sarpanch Village Panchayat Khorsi, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 8, Nammuram Khunte, t-1ead Master, Government Primary School Khorse, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAR.I, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND/OR A_ SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Pfetition No. 1292 of 2006 Petitioaer Vinod Kiunaf Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh axid ofhers Sin^e Bench ; HonTile Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri P.S. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Gencral with Smt. Aaju Ahuja, Govenunent Advocate for fhe respondents No. l to 5/State. None for the respondents No. 6 to 8. ORAL ORDER ( 25th Mareh, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agniltotri, J. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher and posted at the Govenunent Piim.ary School, Khorsi, District Jaajgir-Champa, According to the petitioner, fhe atteinpts have been inadc to assault the petitioner and as such the petitioner ffled the representations to the respondents No. 4/District Education Officer on 7.11.2005 (Auncxure P/8) and 1,2.2006 (Annexure P/11). The respondents No. 4 has not considered fhe above stated representetions of the petitioner. The petitioner has ffled fhis petition, praying that the respoudent authorities be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner for his attachment/transfer to some other school from the Goverument Primajy School, Khorsi, to which leanaed counsel for the respondents No. l to 5 have no objection. ______——i Accordiagty, fhe respondent authoritics are directed to consider and decide fhe lepresentations of the petitioner dated 7.11.2005 (Annexiu-e P/8) and 1.2.2006 (Aiuiexure P/11), in accoidance with law, wittiin a period offourweeks from the date ofreceipt/production of a oopy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to ffle a fresh representetion, if so advfaed, within a period ofone week, fhe same may also be considered within a period offourweeks firom the receipt ofthe said representation. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. ablu Sd/- SatishKAgnihotn Judge