glli!.s!11 F RFI i;^iiL.!;L 2 ^s^-- PAfle p.R.No.......-^-;"^^^,^......,.. p.esenlcu hy s^f^^:;;;:........... ^ .?^ °° ( dalBd......-—-— ^ W THE HIOH COURT OB' JITOICATORE AT BI&ASPUR WBIT PEmTiSR. ^'"^ P5TITIOBBR ^ NARB3SDRA KTOOAR DBWASOABT S/o Late Shri N.R. Dewangan By. Post Assistant Teacher Aged About 36 Yrs R/o Block Colony Usrifaeda (Lohandigudaj Tahsil Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) VBRSUS SS^POfSDB^SS ^. 1. 8tate<ifChS^ittisger& y Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhavan, ^Mantralya Raipur.(C.G.) 3. Tbe CoUector- Bastar, 3. IWstrict Bdueation OfEisw ^ Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) 4. Bls©&Bdueatica O^sez Block- Lohandiguda, Tahsil Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar {C.G.} WS3T PETITIOB UWDES AJRTICI.E 226f227 OF -^y THECQNSTITCTION OF IKDtA S^^JSSOAIESSJSS ' M, ^KIT i» -ms sATimjg oy cs^TipRAsa ^"^ ^UANDABroS ESC AHD FOR AKPROI'RIATB ^\AV^^>ER/ ORDETS. DIRECTION/ DIRECTESOSSt XI-HC-22 V. sn^r^r f^IT^Sn^T sb*ii<ti (tf?<r StiW^i ac^f *TT'1MTaitn<» 3:s?'::3iFTRpr, oTn+i'is, Ri<niyy 3TT^?T^iach ^U..K:NK...^.^l^ ^ f^s 3D^T??gTWHf^(T 08^8-2006 Shri Prakash Tiwari, couns^i for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. ^dvocate for the State/ respondents, on advance copy. Heard. By the instant writ petition i|inder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenifeed his transfer order dated 07.07.2006 (Annexure-P/1), passed by respojndent No.2whereby the petitioner has been transferred fwm Middle Scfiool Dharaur, Lohandiguda to Primary Schooi, Satna, Baderajpur. The main ground of chall transferred just within a period of t| (4) of the transfer policy. Further present place where the petitione) respondent No.2 raising all hj ^.rafe'fh'irpTafifte^t ttezK ^Tgif^Tsn^T [enge is that the petitioner has been ^n months which is contrary to Clause 2 objection of the petitioner is that at the is working, he is the only teacher and after his transfer there wouid be ho teacher and moreover, 170 students are studying in the said school. Learned counsel for the pe^tioner submits thatin the circumstances the petitioner may be aliowed respondent No.2 highlighting the be directed to decide the same to| to make a detailed representation to above anomalies and respondent No.2 which learned counsel appearing for the State/ respondents has no objecticjin. Havlng heard learned courjsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of <he case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner appe|ars to be just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, fhe petitioner is allow^d to make a detailed representation to |s grievances highlighting the above (^y^) 3^ -^WW^, VnSv'16, ist^liyy OT^TMach ^rTa^^^---^009^ 200 Wlfeffl^ WR?ffffteiA tfsffsn ^;3T^lT3T1^T 3IT^?T ®RITWBf^tT sn^r^r f^ITERSn^T StiHltiBfel aidffi anoma!ies, annexing a copy of ten days from today and In tum, r^s same within a period of one mont^ aU the grievances'raised by th^ accordance with iaw. With the aforesaid directiotls, Consequentiy, M.(W.). P, \ Parties are entitted for certtied instant writ petition within a period of •spondent No.2 is directed to decide the from the date of its receipt, considering petitioner in an objective manner, in , fte writ petition stands disposed of. ..3118/2006 aiso stands disposed of. copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Jucige (•ft^y^)