iiNGLE BENCH <^ (erf^: BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WP[S] NoA.S??./2010 Petitioner: B.P.Ratade, S/o Late Badalua Prasad, Aged about 59 years, R/o Kharora (Vill 6s Post) Ward No. 8, Tilda Road, PIN 493225. Raipur Dist, CG State. Respondents: ^^•^ ^^' ^6-'" ^v^ y^>^ ^Mls^ r^ / 1 S.R, -,\-" ^Q^. ^.-r^ 3.-:^"^r ".•••""^J"<^1.^"_ g^-ir^.}0 \\y-^"' Versus / 1. StateofC.G. Through: Secretary, School Education Department, Govt.ofCG, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, 2. Dist. Education OfiBcer, Raipur, Raipur Dsit, CG State. 3. Rakesh Gupta, Lecturer, J.N. ]$idey, Higher Secondary School^ Raipur Raipur Dist, CG State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSfSI ORDERrSI DIRECTIONfSI ETC. ^T^T '2RT Ri'lJcb WT^TT^TsF^N? J • ~3^T -qiqicn^, ^^I^I^Ko, f®ICrll<H^< ^^^^M^.^&.....^,„ ^V^f ^W (llclf^<itT) ^RHW ^f^y 3^n^r SB : Hon'ble Shn IVIanindra Mohasl 16-08-2010 Shri K. R. Nair, counsel for th^ Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pan^ copy. Heard on admissjon, Bythis petition, the petitione| order dated 15-07-2010 (Annexure 2010 (Annexure P-2). Submission of tearned cou impugned order dated 15-07-2010 c from the higher post of Block Edi Prjncipat. It is also submitted that res and not even etigible to be promol been iliegafly appointed as Bloct impugned order, in the submission has been passed to accommodate t^- impugned order is malafide, capricioi From a perusal of order dat< revealed that the petitioner, a ser Educatbn Offioer at Tilda. Order dc promoted to the post of Blook Educ^ hoc basis. It is merely a posting ord petitioner has no right to hold the pos no other material available on recorc cbl^^'1 'HP^ff ^ 1^t <Rsi^l< ^3?Rm3?I7^T Shrivastava, J, petitioner Lawyer for the State on advance has assailed legality and vaiidity of :>-1) and another order dated 15-07- isel for the petitioner js that the mounts to reversion of the petitioner ication Officer to the lower post of pondent No.3, who 1s only a Leoturer ied as Btock Education Officer, has Education Officer at Tilda. The \)f learned oounsel for the petitioner, |e respondent No.3, and therefore the [isand arbitrary. ^_ ^d 11-11-2009 (Annexure P-7), it is |ior Principal was posted as Block |es not show that the petitioner was |tion Officer either reguiarty or on Ad |r on the higher post. Therefore, the of Block Education Officer. There is to show that the petitioner was ever ^^S/147—2/2010—1,00,000. &-"2-^ ^. "': =F -%^>- 1 ~Y":: ^' ^' -s.- XI-HC—78 3:n^?T'cFT f^tNi- TTSH 317^7 ^E^?N' liTumane <-(£ HWW ^h^f^ft "s^ ^ww^, yiii'H^Ko, fsi<ni<-r^< ^.l^A^.^i.9^200 ^?T TT^T (liGii^<^r) promoted to the post of Block Educ< the petitioner as Principal vide (Annexure P-1) does not amount to Other submission of learned respondent No.3 coutd not be app< the post of Bbck Education Officer from amongst eiigible Principal, A^ and not from the Lecturers. The aforesaid submissions respondent No.3 has been appointejd not correct. A perusal of impugned 2) would show that respondent Nc| charge Block Education Officer, appointment, but onty an lncharge| the post is posted. Posting of re^ Education Officer appears to be a| respondent authorities appoint/regi|li the post of Block Education Offic^r claim for promotion, it would be oj^e same. Nave With the aforesaid observatic^n, the petition is dismissed. cr>i^f^i<i1i WR^Jf ^* 'fe^cft <P^^« ^3tRFT3TT^T Ition OfTjcer Thererore, tne posting or impugned order dated 15-07-2010 •eversion under the law. counsel for the petitioner is that the »inted as Block Education Officer, as ;s to be fitled up by way of promotbn sistant Block Education Officer oniy been made on the basis that the as Block Eduoation Officer, which is (srder dated 15-07-2010 (Annexure P- .3has been posted temporarily as In [Tilda, District Raipur. It is not an jarrangement till regutar incumbent of tpondent No.3 on the post of Blook h interim arrangement. tn case, the [larize or promote respondent No.3 on without considering the petitionerts |)en for the petitioner to challenge the Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge