IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) No. ‘WW OF 2009 /r . Sita Ram Sahu Son of Late Shri Dwarika Prasad Sahu, aged about 9 years, R/o Village and Post Hasua, Block Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS /. 1. ‘ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secreta ry, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). / 2. Director, Public Instruction, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.KChief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) ., 4. (W District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.), ,2 5. Block Education Officer, Block Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.). W l 6. Rajendra Kumar Rakesh, Son of i Hari- Ram, aged about 48 years, Upper Division Teacher, at present working at Middle School, Baloda, Block Kasdol, f, (C.G.), 7. Ram Lal Sahu, at present working at Govt. Middle School, Khapridih, Block Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.). District Raipur 4 Wm m W (Ma) mmm . * u ‘ r; ' * ‘§ 13.8.2069 Shr‘i P.P.Sahu, counsel for t e Detitionar. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, GA. for tbs State. Challenge in the present etiticn is to the 0rder dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) passed q respondent No.3 by which the petitioner who is working as U er Division Teacher has been loda to Govt. Middle Schoo}, transferred from Middle Schoo Basinpali. Contention of the counsel or the petitioner is that in his present place of posting he has jined on 22.9.2008 Whereas the respondent No.6 has joined in t e month of January 2009 and therefore under the rationalizatio policy the petitioner cannot be treated as surplus and if at all sme one is to go then it is the respondent No.6 who is to be tra erred. He further submits that the vacant posts in various scho‘s have not been displaced and therefore the petitioner was not ab [e to give his option and the very purpose of the policy is frustrated. Counsel for the State submi representation before the Compé would be decided in accordance wii Accordingly, the petition is the petitioner to file representatic ‘ within a period of ten days from ti order, the same would be decided weeks from the date of its receipt ’I‘ill then the order impugned shall ts that let the petitioner make a ,tent Authority and the same .h law. disposed of with a direction to rn to the authorities concerned 1e date of receipt of copy of this within a further period of three strictly in accordance with law. qot be given effec’tto ,, .«J Sdl’ yrit'mkef Diw Judge akel“ a nn f n