Tarun Kumar Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6872 of 2017 • Tarun Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Bhuvanlal Jaiswal, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher, Panchayat, Govt. Primary School Pondi Sankul Seepat, R/o Village Pondi, Seepat Vikaskhand, Masturi, Thana Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Panchayat , Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

7. Block Education Officer, Office Of The Block Education Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. R. K. Patel, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Manish Nigam, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 05/01/2018 1.

The ground raised in this petition is that the petitioner has been wrongly declared as surplus.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a case where similar ground was raised, a direction has been issued on 14.12.2017 in WPS No.7127 of 2017 to examine the same and status quo has been directed to be maintained. It is submitted that the case f the petitioner is identical, therefore, similar direction may be

issued in this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the State would submit that looking to the interest of educational session, direction may be confined for a limited period for consideration. 4.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner in case the petitioner prefers representation within a period of 10 days from today, the same shall be examined and order be passed within 20 days from the date of submission of representation. For a period of 30 days, status quo as exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit