High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/784/2017disposed off

Smt. Usha Karangle v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-02-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.784 of 2017 Smt. Usha Karangle W/o Pradeep Kumar Karangle Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher ( Panchayat), Government Primary School, Dadhi, Post Dadhi, Block Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Directorate Of Panchayat & Rural Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office & Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

4. Zila Panchayat, Bemetara, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

5. Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

6. District Education Officer, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

7. Block Education Officer, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent : Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 16/02/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order for promotion on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) under Rule 18(1)(b) of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules of 1999").

(3) The petitioner has remedy to make a representation before the respondent No.4-Zila Panchayat, Bemetara. If such representation is made by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 18(1)(b) of the Rules of 1999 before the said authority, the authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with Rule 18(1)(b) of the Rules of 1999 preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

(4) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority may decide the representation on its own merits. (5) With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-