Q F\ smw m5” IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CI-II-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N(S) No. 3W /2011 PETITIONER : KAMARJAHAN W/o Shri. Jamihasan Aged about 38 Years, Employed as Shiksha Karmi GT3 Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya Vidyalaya Janakpur Block Bharatpur R/o : Bharatpuf Dist. Korea (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1./ State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, RAIPUR (CG) 2. The Collector, Korea District, Korea (CG) 3. (V The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korea, Dt. Korea. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bharatpur, District : Korea (CG) The Pariyojna Samanvyak, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Korea, Dist. Korea (CG) 6. The Assistant Commissioner, w“ Tribal Development, Korea (CG) 7. The Block Education Officer, Bharatpur, District : Korea (CG) ”a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 33 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 164 of2011 PETITIONER : Kamarajahan VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'I‘HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. 5 ORDER ORAL (Passed on 13 day of January, 2011) l. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing ofthe attachment order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P/3) and further, a direction to the respondent No. 4 to post the petitioner back to her former place i.e. at KGBA vidyalaya, Janakpur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade II. vide order dated 25.7.t998 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, vide order dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was transferred hom Primary School Kundra to Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Vidyalaya, Janakpur. Subsequently, the petitioner was attached to Primary School, Nadiyatola in Bharatpur Block vide order dated 30.09.2010 (Amermre P/3). Shri Rao further submits that the impugied attachment order is contrary to the circular dated 04.06.2001 (Annexure P/12) issued by the then State ofMadhya Pradesh. 3. On the other hand. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that this is the third round of litigation as the petitioner, on MO earlier two occasions, has sought to challenge the order which is impugwd herein. Thus, this petition may not be maintainable. . On perusal ofthe pleadings and documents appended to the petition, it is evident that against the impugied attachment order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner had filed a petition being W.P (S) No. 5848/2010, on 05.10.2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authoiity, vide order dated 08.10.2010 (Annexure P/7). 'l‘hereatier, the petitioner had preferred one more petition being W.P.(S) No. 6557/2010 on 12.11.12010 wherein the same attachment order i.e. dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P/3) was under challenge. The said petition was also disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, vide order dated 18.11.2010. The instant petition has been filed challenging the same order, on 11.01 .201 1. . It appears that the petitioner, after withdrawing W.P.(S) No. 5848/2010 on 08.10.2010 has made a representatiOn on 09.10.2010. 'I‘hereatter, the petitioner, without waiting for a reasonable time to decide the said representation by the authorities, has rushed to this Court again by filing another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6557/2010 on 12.11.2010 which was also disposed of on 18.11.2010 with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner at the earliest. The petitioner, again, without waiting for a reasonable time, has tiled this third petition challenging the impugied attachment order when, admittedly, no 4.~_M, W L LN pexmission was sought by the petitioner to challenge the same order in the subsequent petitions. . It is well settled law is that if a representation is made, the same should be decided within a period ofthree to six months. The first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to challenge the order impugied herein, in subsequent petition. Thereafter, the second writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner withoutreserving any liberty to the petitioner to earlier two petitions It is a glaring misuse of judicial process which needs to be deprecated and condemned by this Court. . In view ofthe above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with cost quantified to be Rs. 2000/- payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge