Smt. Asha Subodh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 98 of 2017 • Smt. Asha Subodh W/o Shri Lakhan Subodh, Aged About 58 Years Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Korbi, Block - Belha, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Bilapur (Chhattisgarh)

3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Deorihkurd, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Smt. Seema Keshri W/o Shri Gulbahar Kesri, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Deorikhurd, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J.

Judgment On Board Per Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 22/03/2017 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General in extensio.

2.

This writ appeal is by the writ petitioner. The appellant, an Upper Division Teacher, was transferred on 28.07.2016. That was challenged before the learned Single Judge after six months therefrom. Learned Single Judge noted that such delayed challenge to an order of transfer and posting is not to be entertained.

3.

It appears that contemporaneous with the transfer, there were proceedings in the form of an enquiry by the Principal of the School where the appellant was earlier working. The allegation against her was that she had beaten up a child in the school. The enquiry was at the instance of the parent of the child. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the enquiry is concluded and there is nothing adverse to the appellant. If that were so, as rightly opined by the learned single Judge, the appellant can seek relief on that basis and need not be further apprehensive about those proceedings. 4.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. We would, however, leave open the right of the appellant to make any representation, as may be found necessary, to the competent authority for any further indulgence in the light of the conclusions, if any, stated to have been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Subject to that, this writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan) (Pritinker Diwaker) Chief Justice Judge khan