HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S! N0. 829 of2008 PETITIONER Ramraj Bhaskar S/o Alopi Ram BhaSkar aged about 51 (CG). years, occupation Principal, R/o Janakpur, District Koriya VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe and (CG). OBC Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Collector, Tribal Development Koriya (CG). (VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. MLRDEB (Passed on 8"‘ofrebruary, 2008) l. The petitioner, working as Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Janakpur, Distt. Koriya (CG), was placed under suspension on 27.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) in View of registration of a Criminal Case being Crime No. 58/06 under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, in accordance with rule 9(2) of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 1/ v / (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1965). 2. The said Criminal Case resulted into compromise between the parties on 15.01.2007 and thus the’petitioner was exonerated by the Judicial Magistrate, Manendrag’arh (Camp at Janakpur) (Annexure P/3). Pursuant report to the Collector, Koriya (Tribal Development) for posting him in the district. The Collector, Koriya (respondent No. 2) posted the petitioner at Kudeli in the same District i.e. District Koriya (CG). l 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition, questioning the validity of the order of posting dated 28.01.08 (Annexure P/6), whereby, the petitioner was posted as Principal, Higher Secondary School, Kudeli, District Koriya. 4. The sole contention of the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was suspended from Janakpur where he was working as Principal, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated at Janakpur only, not at any other place. Learned counsel further submits that the legal provision is to reinstate on the same post mean same post and the same place. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended, thereto. The contention of the petitioner that reinstatement to the same post means not only the same office but the same place of posting has no merit. The same post means, the offlce of the Principal not the same place 0f posting. During suspension of the petitioner, new incumbent might have been posted at Janakpur. The petitioner was reinstated on the post of Principal and posted at Kudeli in the same district by the Collector. This is neither a transfer nor postingplatr’ different post in different office. 6. The placement of an employee is discretion of the employer, looking into the public interest and exigency of the services. The petitioner cannot claim that the reinstatement of the same post means posting on the office of , Principal at Janakpur, where some other person might have been posted during this period. This placement is within the same district; therefore, the objection of the petitioner is frivolous, baseless and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. No order asto costs. v Sdl- l Satish K. Agnihotri! Judge ' Sahu x