HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBJLASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON (-S-) No. 2939 of2009 N.L.Barman S/o Shri I.L.Barman, aged about 45 years, working as Music Teacher at Govemment Girls Higher Secondary School, Raigarh, R;'o at Quarter Govenmient Giris Hr. Sec. School Premise, Kosta Para- Raigarh, Dist: RESPONDENTS RaigarhC.G. VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through'tbeir Secretary, School Education Department Manti-alaya, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tlic District Edueation OfFicer, Raigarli, Distt. A- . Raigarh, C.G. 3. Principal, Govemment GMs Higher Secondary School, Kosta Para, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh . C.G. WKTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'fele Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J. Present: Shri M.K.Baeg, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Tliakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERrORAL) I: (Passed on 24m day of June, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner, who is working as Music Teacher ia Govemment Gifls Higher Secondary SehooL Raigarh, seeks a vfrit to quashthe order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P/2) wherebythe petitioner was directed to vacate the premisps wherein the petitioner is living unauthorizedly without its allotment, and further, to quash the| order dated 26.05.2009 (Annexure P/4) whereby the District Ediicatioa Officer has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period ofl5days. Having heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadmgs md documents appended thereto, it appears that fhe petitioner was never allotted the premises in dispute and the petitioner has been occiipyinj the same for the Sast 2-3 years wittiout any allotment, unauthorizedly. f^ <;'• ^: The Principal, accordingly, by order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P/2) directed the petitioner, to vacate the said premises as the same beinj unauthorized and illegal. The respondeat No. 2 has also passed the order dated 26.05.2009 statiag that the petitioner has occupied a room in the premises of tfae Govemment Girls Higher Secondary School, Raigarh witfaout anv written allotoient order. The respoadent No. 2 has aiso approved the order dated 01.04.2990 passed by the respondent No. 3 and fiirther directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. 4. It is not a case ofthe petitioner that the petitioaer was ever allotted the place wherein he is in occupation. It appears that the petitioner has iccupied a room ofthe school wfaich even jotherwise cannot be allotted 1 to the petitioner. Occupation of the petitioner in 1he disputed premises appears t6 be unauthorized and illega! as no document has been submitted by the petitioner to indicate that Ke was ever allotted fhe said ; premises. 5. In view oftheabove, the petition being devoid ofmerit, is dismissed, sunimarily. Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge I! ^li Asnit 'fll^ B