1 - fts&i'I.CiT .% Wa£''--ii-' c s- • IQ IN THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION (St No. ^1(^/201 1 PETITIONER ^^> ^to^.Q^-'-'^..--' ^'''%?''''..-••'''\'y6)' ^•'y^y >?'•' ri; ^<^...- <?<" .ji>--'' RESPONDENTS \ 'al' C.<>. ^^r^/ / Snit. Kamlesh Vanshkar wife of Ravendra Vanshkar, aged about 38 years, Occupation Upper Division Clerk, R/o. Sector-II, Block 13, Room No.4, Kashiram Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS ^. 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Throuhgh : Secretary, Higher School Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^2) Director, Directorate, Chhattis- garh, Public Education, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) :: 3) District Education OfGcer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •^SS'SSt^. ^^^, ~^ (i' 1 <1/0 HIGH COIJRT OP CHHAT'nsCrARH AT BTI.A8PIJR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 6115 af2011 PETmONER : Smt. Kamlesh Vanshkar. VF.RSIJS RESPONDENTS : State ofCl-Aattissam & Others. WRIT PE'm-ION UNDEIi ARTICLE 226/227 OF 'IHE CONSTTTUTION OF li'ij^'j.ri, SB: Hon'bk Sitn,SatishK_Agmhotn.J, Present: Smt. Hamsda Siddiaue. Advocate tbrthe petftioner. SIiii Ai'un Ss.o^ CrovsAisxiisiit Advoc^ts tor tiie ^tuts/icspoxid.dits ORJMR_(ORAL (Passed on 14a day ofOctober, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a directioa to 'the respondent No, 2 to decide the representation filed by tlie petitioner in the light of the direction given by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No- 3384/2011. 2. Smt. Siddique, leamed counsel appearine for tlie petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioaer had filed a. writ petition being V»T.P..(S) No. 3394/2011,. which was disposed of vide order dated 30,06.2011. whereia the State Govenmient was directed to look into the erievance of thc petitioner and post. her at a. place where the eauivalent nost. held bv the netitioaer. was available aad for which. the rictitioner wa-s at libertv to make a reDresentation. The petitioner was larther granted liberty f.o make a. representation in resoect of a. comolaint. or reoort. submitted bv the Director. Public Instntctions. Pureuant to the said observations. the netitioner filed a. represeBtation on 25.08.2011 (Anaexiire P/6) to the respondeat No. 2. The said rspresentation has not been decided and before that the order dated 19.08.2011 (Anaexiire P/l) has been passed wherein it has been direct.ed to posf. the petitioner a.t Govemment Higher Secondary School, Tulsibaradera, Block Dha.rsiwa, District. Rai'Din'. Smt. Siddiciue fiirther submits that aoorooriate direction may be issued to tb.e respondent No. 2 to deci.de her representation dated 25.08.2011 •''Annexiire P/6't as direct.ed bv tbis Court in W.P.fSINo. 3394/2011. '••'ia!e-\ ^ 3. On the other hand. Shri Sao. leamed Govemment appea.rine for the Stete/respondent submits tfaat fhe respondent No. 3. i.e. District. Education Ofiicer- RaiDW. has nassed the order dated 19.08.2011 (Aimexiire P/l) in pursiiance ofthe order dated 30.06,2011. oassed in W.f.(S) No. 3384/2011. wherein the petitioner was given proper oppQrtiinity ofhearing and counselling was conducted on 17.08.2011. It is next cont.ended that the petitioneF was gra.nt.ed t.hree options fbr her transfer but the pefitioner insist.ed for posting at her orieinal place of posf.ing i.e. the office of respondent No. 2. It appears that the petitioner is trviae to asatate the same issue asa.in. which ha.s been raised in the earlier wnt netition. 4. Heard ka.med couasel appearing for the parties, penised the pleadines aad documents appended thereto. 5. On oerusal of the order dated 19.08.2011 fAmiexiire P/'ll it is 't evideat. that. the petitioaer was caUed for counselling to intimate anv three olaees where she could be t.ransferred. but the Detitioner insisted for canceline taer transfer and to aliow her to continue at the ofSce of the respondent No. 2. Now, by wa.y of this petition, the Detitioner is seekine a direction to the resnondent No. 2 to decide tfae rcnresentation wherein she has oraved for atlowins the petitioner t.o contiaue in the ofBce ofrespondent No. 2. It appears that the oetitioner is not interested in iomme anv other ola.ce excent the office of the respondeiit. No. 2. Even otherwise, no du-ection can be issued to the respondent. No. 2 to decide the renresentation dated 25.08.2011 i'Annexiire P/6i as the eariier writ was disooss ofa'antins libertv to the oetitioner to make a renreseination. 6. After making reoresentation on 25.08.2011. 1he oetitioner has nished to this Coiirt on 28.09.2011 wifhout waitma for a reasonable time to take any decision on the representation. La.w in tfais regard is well settled that a statirtory represenfation or appeai has to be decided withm a. reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months. A seven Judees Bench of tlie Supreme Court, in S.S.PMthore v. State ofMadhya Pradesh , obsen'ed as under: "17. Redressal of erievances in the hands of the departiaetital authorities taken an miduly long time. That is so on account ofthe fa.ct thal 110 alleulion is uruinariiy beslowed over fhese matters and thev are not coasidered to be govsniinsnial business of substanus. This approach has to be deprecated and authorilies on whom power is vested to dispose of appea.ls and revisions under the Set-vice Ruies must dispose of such mattere as exoeditiouslv as oossible. Ordinarilv. a periou of uires io six moaths shoulu be the outer limit. That would discipline Ihe svstem aud keep the publii; servanl away fi-om a 7. Tb.ts. ao relief at this sta.ee may be granSed t.o the oetitioner. Under fhe earb of direction to t.he resriondent No. 2, the oetitioner is trying to re-agitate the isgue which is not at all penni&sible. It is well settled that no siibstantive netition can be filed for the same relwf. which was alreadv souAt for ia fhe eariier writ netition. In view the writ le foregoing, and forthe reasons stated hereinabove, is dismissed. No order ast.o cost.s. Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNIHOM Judge