:'-'sv^ S*€.SW C^ li»T?7 ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P. (S) N0. OF 2011 PETITIONER ^St ,M ^.•:.^ A/1/0^<'L^: ^y^^..^ - <v ...^l^^ ^•° yffT^ e7/ -> ••>•** -f^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shivmurty Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Talukadar Singh, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School Parasgadi, 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.) ^) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA HIOH COI.1KT OF CHHATTISOARH AT Bn.ASPUR PETITtONER WMT PEriTtON (-S) No. 1613 of2011 Shivmiirtv Singh. RESPONDET\TS VKRSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. 5MTPE2112QNUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THECQNS3TTUTK)N OF INDIA - SB: Hon'bie Shri Sattefa K, Acpittwtti.A Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemnient. Advocate for the Stat&<res| . No. 1.2and5. : • . .. • .:..:.;-,,..: . .-. None for the respondeiit No. 4, despite service ofnotice. 'l (Passed on Ol" day ofSeptember, 2011) " The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 14.01.2011 (Amiexiu'e P/l) traasferring the petitioaer, woridng as Uppa- Divisi<m 1'eacber, at Middle Schoo! Parasgadhi, to.Middle School, Bhaitnta, cm the ground of raticcalization after deelariai him siirplus.is ba:d in !aw as fhe same has beenpassed bvthe Ghief Executive QfScer (for short 'the C.EO'). Jila Paachayat, Koria. Shri Pawar fiirther submits thaf tbe maao dated 19.05.2( (Anaexiire P/3), provides that for transfeiring ofPrimary aBd' Middle Sehool Teachere, wfao are declared siirplus; ttiere shonld a comniittee at Janpad Level comprisiag of CEO, Pancha.yat as President, Block Education Offieer w Member Secretary, Block Reso-drce Coordmatcir, Rajiv OandlH Shiksha. Mission, and one representative ofNagar PaJika/Nagar Vigsm, as Members. . - • -;.,., Notices were issued to tte respoa<tats an 25.03.2011 aad the notiees ha.ve duly been served upon the respondents 4. The respondent No. 4 i.e. CEO, Janpad Paachayat, Maaendragarh, has chosm aot to appear before tlie'Court nor has filed any return. So far a.s service of notice to the respoadent No. 3 is c»n(»med,it appeare that the service ofnot.ice has not come t»ck. In-idwttical mattere i.e. W.P.(S) No, 1615/2011, 1617/2011, .1612/2011 and 1611/2011, and other connected matters, the GEO. Jila Panchavat, yUiSTTsrni'n'lff^'l'Wfyir-~^wai^-sisei^Si s •.•s^^^^'s'^sas.-l'K^^^.^iS^^-^.s.iis.^ 4. 6. 7. Koriya, is also respondent No. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent No. 3 on the same date i.e. 25.03.2011 wUcb tias. been ditiy served, but no representation ha.s beea ma.de by the respondent No. 3 nor any retiim ha.s been filed. Shri Sao, leamed Govemmeat Advocate appeariag for the State/ respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 submits tfaat it appeam that the respondent No. 3 has not followed the giiidelines as provided in memo dated 19.05.2010. This is for the respondest. No. 3 and 4 to e^iam. Oa consideration of the submissioa made by leamed cou&sffl appearing for the petitioner and rwpondent No. 1,2 aad 5, a.s well as on penisal ofthe dociiments, particularly the impugied traasfer order, it appears that. necessary requisite conamttee as provided ia memo dated 19.05.2010 was not constitirt<d smd the respoadent No. 3, on his own ha-s passed the immig'ied order dat<d 14.01.2011 (Annexiire P/l) under the garb of rationatization policy. The conteation of leamed coiinsel appeariag for flie petit.ioner thai the transfer order was aot pa&sed by a. competent Coaunittee. as aforestotecL merits acceptance. Thus, fhe impugned tFaasfer OTder dat<d 14.01.2011 (Armexiire P/l) is bad in law, imjust and deserves to be and is accoTdmgly quashed in respert of the Axnit Haviag regard to the fa.ct.s situation oftfae case when it appeara that the CEO, Jila. Panchavat. Koriya, has driven the petitiona-to tbe Court by not complying with the provisions of law and forther, he has aot chosen to appear before this Court evea-aftCT notice, it would bejust and properto impose-a cost ofRs. 58eQ/-payaNe by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. The said aBioiiatmaybe recovered finm the respondeut No. 3. - .-.;.?> In view of the above. the writ petiticc is allowed to tlie nbove extent. -, ~^-~ Sd/- SatishK.Agnifaotri Judge