./ ^0^<^ '^-•"Q,^"'"^ ^^^:^'^y!""" o.^ -'! \VJ<-*" s^aA::;.>)-' 'w^-"" CF-{w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) ^3^ /2006 s<^ PETITIONER ANAND KUMAR MISHRA / S/o Shri Loknath Mishra By. Post- Assistant Teacher Aged About 49 Yrs R/o Post and Village Janakpur Tahsil Bharatpur, District Korea (C.G. RESPONDENT // ^^iy '^^SsS'sv^'.sSSf VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh . Through the Secretary, DeDartment of Tribal Welfare T^ l^ C T>.1^QT7Q-n i-^,ri-.0. L.sLs.G.v GJ.L, Ivlantralya Raipur.(C.G.) 2. The CoUector Korea (C.G.) i» 3. Asslstaut Coniinissioner > Baikunthpur, KoreafC.G.) 4. CominissioneriTribal Welfarel Universit^ CsinDUS- Raiuur Distt. Raipur {C.G.} WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCEOF WMT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIQRAm MANDAMUS ETC AND FOR APPROPRIATE XI-HC-78 IIHWI Sh+lich 3^'STPITrra', ®Tnyis,Ridiuy ^^ ..^^.^3.7.C^ 200 -6 .Ct 3T(^T 4ach (li,ct?^cl<ii;T) sn^T^Tf^rRi (rarsn^TgiHRi WBTW Hf??T 3n^T ^rafeftT WtRTt'fffe^t rf^RZTC ^sri^Hgn^r Sbvt <ks 18-8-2006 Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, coun^e! Mr. Sotish Supta, Deputy on advance copy. Heard both the counsel. By the instant writ petition of India, ths petitioner has challen^ed 14-7-2006 passed by respondent] Scheme declarin9 the petitioner Middie School, Bharatpur, Block; Bhcratpur. The impu9nsd order has 2006 and clause 7 of the Schem^ ag9rieved by the order passed by efficscious remedy is available to] petitioner ou9ht to have tavaiied of In the circumstances, learn^d the petitioner wants to file an the Scheme and the appropriate au\ However, since time under petitioner has approoched this Coi4"l taken by the petitioner from the| disposal shal! be condoned by the for the petitioner. t. Advocate for the State/ respondents, lunder Article 226/227 of the Constitution his transfer order Annexure-P/1 diited No.3 whereby under the Rationalization surplus, he has been transferred from ^haratpur to Primary Schooi, Pandri, B!ock: beeln the pessed under- the Rationolization Scheme, provides for an appeal if any teacher is competent authority. Therefore, equalty |the petitionet*. In ths first instance, the I'hat remedy. counse! for the petitioner submitted that ip^al before the appropriate author-ity under ^hority be directed to decide the same. Cpause 7 for filing an appeal is 7 dcys and the i4't by filing this uurit petition, as such, time date of filing of this crit petition till its appropriate authority. In the mean time, app^al P.T.O. •'. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 <-nH^ITsft*l|ct» 3^'-iTraT?Fr, ®T(I«'I(B,Rjdiy^< ..^^..^^^ 3n^TMa<*i (licll^'sl<i,!iT) sn^TqiTR-fitti awsn^Tshtiitti Soma STBTW tlfer 3TI^T •^- respondent No.4 may consider the^ petitioner and decide the ssme. The writ petition is accordin^ly, Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.3; Porties are entitled for certtfied ^ilffrl'ifl-i ^14dTirfscA<RlWI< ^>3rf^nT3t1^T representation Annexure P-4 filed by the ', dismissed, at the admission stage itself. 89/2006 stands disposed of. copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge P.T.O. ^t'