Chhatrapal Singh, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2826 of 2021 Chhatrapal Singh, S/o Late Shri Mishri Singh, Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Teacher (L B), Government Boys Residential School - Keshkutul, Tahsil - Bhairamgarh District - Beejapur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2.
The Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3.
The Collector Beejapur, District - Beejapur Chhattisgarh. 4.
The District Education Officer - Beejapur, District - Beejapur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For State :
Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/06/2021 1.
Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not transferring the petitioner inspite of the petitioner having given his option to have been transferred to the Gaurela block under District Bilaspur at one point of time and now Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi itself has been constituted as a new District.
2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that meanwhile an order of transfer dated 01.10.2019 was published in respect of all those applicants who had moved an application for a request transfer. However, in the said order the name of the petitioner seems to have been wrongly mentioned and therefore the said order so far as the petitioner is
concerned was not acted upon. However, inspite of several efforts thereafter for the correction of the order dated 01.10.2019 or for issuance of a fresh order of transfer at the choice station sought by the petitioner for being posted anywhere in or nearby the newly established Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi District, the Respondents have not taken any dcision on his request. According to the petitioner the new district being a tribal district and the petitioner belonging to the tribal Department could have been easily accommodated there. There is no decision taken by the respondents, thus the petitioner prays for the disposal of the present writ petition for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.1 to take an appropriate decision in this regard. 3.
The State counsel however submits that any decision would be subject to the availability of vacancies and also taking into consideration the overall administrative exigency.
4.
Given the submissions by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation in addition to all those representation that he has made in the past, to the respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent No.1 in turn shall consider the application of the petitioner for a request transfer at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
5.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved