Y\ ', ::'!'\\. u.uii.^ut.iten-ds;;:.. •— -; '^^s^sS^':^^''!''^^^'^''^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH AT Bil.ASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: KON'BLE SHRi JAGDISH HON'BI-E SHRI SATISH K. .CJ. & !,J. APPELLANT: SPetitipnerS Writ Appeaj No. 269 of 2007 Kamund Lai Dahariya S/o. Shri Bhagirathr Dahariya, aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher, presenUy posted as Biock ' > Deveiopment Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block \. Podi Uprodha, District— District ^, Korba, Chhattisgarfl. Versus Respondents 1. 2. :3. 4. State 6f Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Department of SchpoS Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Directpr Mission, Rajiv Ganani Shiksha Mission, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Coltoctor, District Chhattisgarh. Korba, Director, DistriGt Proiject, Rajiv Gandhi Sftiksha Mission, District: Korba.Chhattisgarh. WritAppealUnderSection2(1)oftheHighCourtofChhattisga!tt Appea! to Diviston Bench Act. 20Q6 r/w Rule 157f10) of C.G. Hish CourtRuies2005. Present: ShriAnupMajumdar.counselfortheappellant. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Qbvemment Advocate for is State.. : :•.: • '-, . : • . ^ i ORALJUDGMINT (PassedTori2^hrT3cte^r, 2007) I The foliowing oral judgment of ttie Court was passed by || "* ' • • • ' . '. " • ' • .'•''. •.'••• . , . • ' " "; ' i' Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalta, Ag. C.J. The Registry has reported that ther^ is a del^y of 33 days iri |j :/sr . ;.; • • v. '. : • ••^•':i fitirig the writ appeal. tn stead of issuing nofice on the application for | { i!|: condonation ot deiay, in vlew of the fact that unneeessary psndency is ^y:^ ;i-i't:;.;": SiilU' i:M ffii K9 iiitlC subbu 1 ;1^ X- increasing in this Court, we venture to hear learned counsel for the appeilant on merits aswetl. This appeal arisesout of an orderdated 24.07.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein order of repatriation of the appeliant-petitionerwas considered by the ieamed Single Judge and writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal. It has been contended on behalf bfthe appejlanf-petitioner that the impugned order of repath|ition isa stigmatic in nature. When enquired whsther this question was raised before the iearned Single Judge or not, it was repiied that teamed counsel wHo is appearing for the appellant in thisappeai was not the counsel before thewrit Court. In spite of the same, we have considered the question whether the impugned orderis stigmatic in nature or not. From the perusal ofthe repatriation order, jtis ctearthatitis an Qrdersimplicitor. We are ofthe considered opmionthat repatriation amoynteto transfer. The impugnect ordercoutdonlyibeinterferedwjthifeitherthereisanyviolationoflaw or strong case pfroate fete, but in-thiscase nothing of this sort is there. Accordingiy.even on merit we donot find thatthe appeai cansyeceecty In the lightofthe above, theapRiteation I.A. No.1 and the writl appeal stand dismissed. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge m.!- 1;:iii: 1111 W!lai til^;SJa ni 1