Smt. Geeta Purena v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6728 of 2017 • Smt. Geeta Purena S/o Shri Raju Puraena Aged About 29 Years Occupation, Assistant Teacher Panchayat, Government Primary School Madai, R/o Village Madai, Block Masturi Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Sanchalak, Panchayat Sanchanalaya Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

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

7. Block Education Officer, Block Education Officer Masturi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri R. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Sameer Behar, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 05/12/2017 1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.11.2017, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Madai to Semradih on the ground of administrative exigency.

2.

The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any administrative exigency and as such the same is in violation of the transfer policy issued by the State Government.

3.

Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.

4.

Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 4 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

5.

For a period of 12 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained. 6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 7.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities 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/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala