Heera Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6216 of 2016 • Heera Singh S/o Shri Sukhdeo Ram Aged About 47 Years Pradhan Pathak ( H. M.) Govt. Middle School Harri Education Block Development Office & Tahsil Kusmi Civil & Revenue District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Addl. Secretary Ministry Of Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

3. District Education Officer, Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh)

4. Education Block Development Officer Kussmi Tahsil Kusmi District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate For State :

Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Govt. Advocate on advance copy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 15/11/2016 Heard.

1.

The petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 30.07.2016 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the wife of the petitioner is also posted as Assistant Teacher in the same block where the petitioner is presently posted, but while transferring the petitioner to another district, the policy of keeping husband wife together either at same place or nearby station, as far as possible and subject to administrative exigency, has not been kept in view. The other ground is that while transferring the petitioner, the respondents did not take care to see number of teachers posted in the school and secondly that there has to be one headmaster posted in the present school. 2.

The transfer order was passed way back on 30.07.2016 and challenge is made only when the petitioner was relieved on 22.10.2016. The grounds which have been raised requires consideration by the transferring authority. The petitioner has not approached the Court promptly. It being a transfer matter and also taking into

consideration that the grounds which have been raised in the petition requires consideration by the transferring authority, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

3.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file representation and as and when the transfer season comes up and occasion arises for routine transfer, the representation of the petitioner shall be kept in view.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra