Uma Belsariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3248 of 2021 Uma Belsariya Wife Of Hemlal Belsariya Aged About 51 Years R/o. Nayapara, Tashsil - Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2.

Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Adim Jati, Anusuchit Jati Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3.

Director Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4.

Divisional Joint Director Public Education, Bastar Division, District Jagdalpur 5.

District Education Officer North Bastar, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 6.

Block Education Officer Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/07/2021 1.

Aggrieved by the order of posting dated 27.05.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.

The petitioner seems to be the aggrieved of the posting of the petitioner from Bhanupratappur District Kanker to Durgukondol, District Kanker.

3.

Perusal of the record would show that the vide the impugned order the petitioner has been promoted to post the Head Master and on

being promoted the petitioner's place of posting has been decided at Durgukondol, District Kanker and petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the change of posting that too in a core scheduled area.

4.

According to the petitioner, her husband is also working in the same Department and were posted at the same place, on promotion vide the same promotion order, the husband has been sent to a different place i.e. at Orchha, District Narayanpur, which is in violation of the government policy where the husband and wife should be as far as possible retained at the same place. The petitioner has already made a representation in this regard to the authorities concerned highlighting the inconveniences that the petitioner shall be subjected to in compliance to the impugned order. 5.

Given the fact that representation is pending consideration before the respondent authorities and also considering the fact that impugned order is an order of promotion and not in fact an order of transfer. It is left for the respondent authorities to decide the representation and objections that petitioner has raised so far as place of posting is concerned.

6.

Let respondent authorities take appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved