é y r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'fTISGARH AT BILASPUR C/Cw’a? WRIT PETITION (s) N0..3f19.l..../2o1o 'mNGLE BENCH PR ETITIONE RESPONDENTS Tikam Chand Pa‘rel Son of Shri ' Thandar‘am PaTeL aged aBouT 42 year‘s, working as Block Resource Coordina’ror‘, Basna, DisTric? Mahasamupd (C.G.) VERSUS S’ra’re of Chhat‘risgar‘h, Through : \The Secremr'y / Under Secre‘rar‘y, 5chool Education Department ManTralay-J, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ~ (ca). 2. The Direcfor, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Pension Bada, . Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Collec’ror 6i DisTricT Mission Direci‘or, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Disiricf Mahasamund (C.6.), 4. The Dis’rricf Project Officer, Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (6.6.), 5. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG), @ ? 6. Dashmfh Patel, Head Mas'l'er', Govt Middle School, Basna, Block Basna, Disfric‘r Mahasamund (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER AR'IICLE 226 OF TH§ \ COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {S} No. 3901 of2010 ,7 , ¥ PETITIONER ; Tikam Chand Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. _ RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226;0F THE CONS'I‘ITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agm'gog“, J. Present: ~Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shm' Sushi! Dubey, Govement Advocate for the State! Shri AS.Kachl1waha, Advocate for the respondent No. 2;,3 Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. respondent No.1 and 5. and 4. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 21 day of February, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15.07.2010 whereunder, the petitioner was relieved non: his post i.e. Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Basna, District Mahasamund forjoim'ng on the promoted post on the option of District Education Officer, Mahasamund. 2. The petitioner, on making a wrong statement that he was being sent to the oitice of District Education Officer by the impugned order, on cancellation ofhis deputation, was granted status quo vide order dated 30.07.2010 by this Court. Though, the fact remains that the transfer order was passed pursuant to the promotion order dated 29.06.2010 ‘(Annexure P14) whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer, (Economics) and thereatter, the impugned transfer order was passed to join in the office ofDistrict , Mahasamund. %”0 r #4 . Contention of'the learned counsel that it amounts to cancellation of deputation is without any basis as the petitioner has been promoted to the higher post i.e. Lecturer. Though, the petitioner has annexed the order dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure P14), however, the counsel did not state about the fact of promotion on the first date of hearing when the order of status quo was granted. It is a clear case of misleading the Court. Even otherwise, there is no merit in this case. . In View of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost quantified to be Rs. 3500/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid . #ff. t , sd/_ ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Committee.