^ K; ,P;!M?P'IB1 ^MS, tSW^. ^ys^ ^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARil W.P. N0. S'7^? /2006 PETITIONER .• .J^ Jf ^ .**' Y i / .••" c? A^ <^ RESPONDENT^ /-' "^.'o ^ ;. Btt>ACPal': :./'' K.L. Nag . Aged about 33 years S/o. Somaru Ram R/o. Village- Sandrapalli, Post - Cherapalli Tahsil Bho.palpattanam, District South Bastar Dantewada, (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : 'Secretary Tribal Welfare Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department Distt. Dhantewada ( C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer. Block Bhopalapattam, Distt. Dhatntewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CO N STlTUTIONOF INDIA XI-HC-78 S^'-^TPTRR, a^flu'IS, Rdlti^ *1l*1MTSh»l|ch ^ 200 3TI^?rq9R)' (*icl(j,sl^T) sn^rqiT^ieb traT3TR?TstiHI<t> 5RrrwHf5(T3n^T 3.8.2006:- W.P. Nos.3755/2006, 3756/3 3760/2006, 3761/2006, 3762/200^ 3766/200S and 3767/2006. Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel fi] Shri Sumesh Bqaj, G.A. for W\ 006, 3757/2006, 3758/2006, 3759/2006, 3763/2006, 3764/2006, 3765/2006, ir the petitionera. e respondents, on advance copy. order Annexure-P/3 dated 5-7-2006 as per the scheme Annexure-P/1 qOTferift-r mdcff ff teA tte?R ^iSTf^q'an^T Heard both the counsel. By the inslant petitions, the F)etitioners have questioned their transfer iwhereby the petitioners who are working as teachere have been transferr^d under the Rationalization Scheme, Annexure-P/1, dated 1-6-2006 on th^ ground of being excess teachers in the schools where there were teaching. The preliminary objection ha^ been raised by Ihe State Counsel that jnder which Ihe petitionere have been adjusted/transferred, clause-7 of th^ scheme provides for an appeal before the appeflate authority and the petiti^ners have not preferred an appeal and directly approached this Court. Learned counsel for the pe(itioners argued that sub-clause (^) of olause 5 of the Scheme provides for|counselling in the Collector's office by a Committee and the Committee wa^ required 1o conduct counselling after giving notice to the affected teacher^ and after seeking their options, orders were to be passed thereafter. But ii|i Ihese cases, the above clause has not been complied with for the reason tfial the petitioners were given notice on 1-7-2006 and counseiling v;as fixed| account of heavy rain in the area, a| the petitioners could not present t| without hearing the petilionere, W therefore, this is not only in violatio| for 5-7-2006 and during this period, on the roads were btocked and, therefore, lemselves before the said counselling, e impugned order has been passed, 1 of principle of natural justice but also P.T.O. ^fi& u_L2a»>. XI-HC-78 3sr ^|<I||-|T, ^•y'l'i, Riwiuy tTW^I sh+11tt» ^ 200 341^1 y^*(>4q(^°l<<.'lT) sn^rqiTfq-iR; gSIT 311^1 Sb4 < 8i ?RIRRgfeT3I^T •—cg- ^,1^^ wvKtiifh1^ <l«l^l< ^isri^liTsn^r sub-clause (^f) of clause 5 of the S|cheme. The concerned committee ought to have considered the said aspe41 and ought to have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as per th^ Even if there is violation of the considered opinion that in the fi clause. ub-clause (?) of clause 5 of the Scheme, as the mechanism has been devis^d in the scheme that aggrieved person is entitled to file an appeal against th4 Commiltee's decision, therefore, 1 am of rst instance, the petitionere ought to have preferred an appeal before the a|ppellate authority and if they were not satisfied with the decision of the |appellate authority, thereafter only they should have approached this Co|urt. In the circumstances, these writ petilions filed by the pelitioners with|out availing the right of appeal cannot be entertained and same are dismissed. However, learned counsel fo|- the petitioners submitted that as 7 days' time is provided for filing an appeal ^nd the petitioners have filed the present petitions, therefore, time taken by 11] may be condoned and the appell^te authority be directed to accept the appeal. The prayer made by learned therefore, time taken by the petil condoned. If the petitionera file a e petitioners in filing these writ petitions counsel for the petitioners is reasonable, ioners in filing these writ petitions is fi appeal before the appellate authority within a week from today, then the a|)pellate authority to decide the appeal as early as possible preferably within 4 period of 30 days after considering all the points raised by the petitiotere and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, as 13 writ petitfons have been flled in this Court arising out of the same order. I In view of this order, all the p^nding applications stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifieiti copy of this order. Sd'- L.C.Bt^'W0 judge