Kl, *- MWW^ ^^ (D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P. (S) N0. Ul^ OF 2011 PETITIONER sJ<^?^A <y, :.^s^^ ^w^y «•.:•' s»- y RESPQNDENTS VERSUS :1 2. 3. 4. 5. Mukdeo Ram, aged about 46 years, S/o Moher Sai, Shiksha Karmi Varg- II, Government Middle School Naugai, Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh Distt. Korea (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) ..i.V*^ ^',' 1^~1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA e ^' HTGH COtJRT OE CHHATnSGARH AT BnASPUR WRIT PETmON (8) No. 1611 of2011 PETmONER 8E8PONDENT8 Miikdeo Ram. VRRSDS State ofChhattisi WKTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE C»NSTmjnONOF INDIA ! -- ":' 'v"' SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, .1. Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate fbr the petitioner. !hri Arun Sao, Govennneiri. Advocate for Ihe Stale/respondpnt No.l,2and5. - Noiie for the respoiident No. 3 and 4, despite service ofBatice. PR»ER(ORAI^' . .. :.,'.,,:..._ (PassedoB01'ldayQfSepteaiber,2011) ', ., The grievance ofthe petitiauer is that tiw impu^ied order dated 14.01.2011 (Amiexiire P/l) fransfeaTine tfae petitioner, wwking as Shiksha Kanni, Grade II, at Middle Sdhool Nangai, to Middle School, Piitadand, onthe a-oimd ofrationalizationafterdeclanng him surptas, is bad in law as Ifae same h&s beea passed by Ihe Chief Execirtive Qfficer (for short 'the. CEO'), Jila Panchayat Koria. Shri Pawar fiirther submite that the memo dated 19.05.2010 (Anneaire P/3), providw that fw transferring of Primary and R-e- Middle School Teachers, •wbo are declared surplus, there shottld be a committee at Janpad Level eomprising of GEQ, Janpad Panchayat as Presideat, Block Ediication CtfBeeF-as;Member Seeretary, Block Resoin-ce Coordiaator, Rajiv Gandhi Shikstia Missioa, and one representative ofNaear Palika./Nagar Ni^im, as 3. Notices were issued to the respondeats oa 25.03.2011 notices have duly beea swved upon the respondents 3 and respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. CEO, JUa Panchayst, Koria and CEO Janpad Panchayat, Maneadragarh, have ehosen aot ts before tiie Court nor have filed anv retum. — -2-- m 4. 7. Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appeariag fi>r tfae Stsite/ respoadent No. 1, 4 and 5 siihnats tlat ft appeats tlat. ttK respondent No. 3 ha-s not followed the giiidelines as provided in memo dated 19.05.2010. This is for flie respondent No. 3 and 4 to explam. Qn consideratioa of the submission made bv leamed couasel appearine for the petitioner and respondent No, 1, 2 and 5; as well as <m penisal ofthe dociuaents, particularly the impugaed transfer order, it appeare that aecessary requisite cominittee as prowffad in memo dated 19.05.2010 was not eonstituted and the respondent No. 3, on his own has passed the impugned order dated 14.01.2011 (Annexiire P/l) imder the garb of rationalizatien poliey. The contention ofleamed counsel appearing for the petitioHer that Ifae transfer order was aot passed by a competent Cnnmittee, as aforestated, merits acceptance. Thiis, ttie impiignedtransfer oBder dated 14.01.2011 (Annexiire P/l) ig bad in law, imjiist aad deserves to be aiid is accordingly quaslied in respeet 6f fke petitioner. Having regard to the facte sitiiation ofthe case wfaen it appeare Ihat the CEO, Jila Paachayat, Koriya, has driven the petitioner to tfae Court by not complying with fhe provisions oflaw and fitrtfaa-, he ia.s not chosen to appear before Ifais Court even afi.er iwitice, it would bejust and properto impose a cost ofRs. 5006/"payabte by Ihe respondent No. 3 to Ifae petitioner. The said amiwat may be recoveredfromtherespondeiitNo.S. ;. . i^ ' " ; In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the above ;.tm£