GLE BENC! c ,4,\sui IN THE HiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHA'TTISGARH W.P.SO-W •3362—l2006 ^'.'>' <^--;^^' ^'>-vv-^h6;'""" ....-• ^il^>"" ^^f^' ^ Smt. Jyoti Kerketta i W/'o Shri A.S.Kerketta, ! Aged about 46 years, Assistant Professor ^Hindil Govt. College, Utai, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) R/o - H/42-B, Maroda Sectar Bhiiai Nagar, Durg, Dist: Durg-(C.&.} ./.•' A- State of Chhattisgarn Throush It^ Secrefca-ry Higher Edueation Departinent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur -(C.G.j 2. The Principle Govt. Cottege Utai, Dist: Durg-{C.G.j AZ; 27 OF THE CQRSTITUTIO^ OF XI-HC-22 3^ "itllldt), S'tflu'KS, Rtdltiy 3llct<?lM^<ft lltlTII StlHli* ' '^^ ^WS^ 200^ ftres""""""",' sn^ffw R-li'bSII^'T VWRflfeff W^W g-WIWflfiff Mr. S.K. Thomas, counsei for- AAr. A.S. Kachhawcha,. 60' r'espondents, on aa'vance copy. Heord both the counsel. |ths petitioner. H. Advocste for the State/Ccveator'/ Sy this writ petition under A the pstitioner- has challenged her fransfar order' dated 30-6-2006 wher-eby she hcs been tr'ansferred from t chailengeis that father-in-liaw of bedridden since last five years or^i husband of the petitioner is wofkmg in Bhilsi Stesi Plant, therefore, she is s tady member of the family, she is in-iaw. Her daughter 'is also study hcve not been considered by the tf^nsfe.s'ring cuthority. Leorned counsei for the pet] q>l<irn<fl-f IIHwTftTs'l') <(a|^l< ^aTl^fl'sn^r ticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ftw to Bemetara. The main ground for 1'he petitioner is 85 years oid and totaJIy not in c position to shift her famiiy. Being 'equired to sttsnd the needs of her fother- ng at Bhilai in Ciass-VIl. These hardships tioner submits thst the petitioner may be allowed to make s r-epresentstion ^p respondent No.l cnd respondsnt No.l be di"eeted to'ciecide the same to wh) r^spondents has no objection. The main grievance of iear'ne^ 6ovt. Advocate is that since ths academic session has afready comnienced. on students may suffer". Having heard leorned couns4i foi* the parties and hcving regcrd to the •fccis and afcumstancea of the cas4. the case, the pr-cyer- made by learnj lt-1 ch learned Sovt. Advocats for the StaTe/ jaccount of non-avQiiabiiity of tenchers, the without expr-essi'ng any opinion on merit of d counsel for the petitioner appears to be XI-HC-22 u-' 3^ -!<NIMA|, t?T(1yl(y, |s|cfl'y^< 3ii^i 4a<sb ^u' v ' *fiWTl ai*iicn f^s 200^ STI^TqiT f^iNisn^r shfroofiff Soma aii^i swiwflfter ^ Thereflare isponde|nt just, foir snd reasonabie. detaiisd representation to re: pstition with.in fiye days fr'om toda^ tha representation of the petitior receipt, in an objective manner, in ai of the petitioner is decided, she s? "eiieved. With the di-ection aforesaidj ConsequentSy, M.(W.)P.No.25] Parties are entitied for certil q>i<it<n<fl-< iii<iTifte^t'<Ri<^ii<. ^^^iTsn^r ;, the petitioner is altowed to make o nt No.l annexing a copy of the instant wrlt and in turn, respondent No.l shall decids er within 15 dsys from the data of its cordance with law. Till the representotion ould not be reiived, if shs is aiready not the petition stsnds disposed of. S9/2006 also stands disposed of. ;ied copy of this order. Sd)- L.C. Shoaao Judge »id