Hemlal Belsariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3225 of 2021 Hemlal Belsariya S/o Late Pyarelal Belsariya Aged About 50 Years Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Adim Jati, Anusuchit Jati Development Department, 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 Chhattisgarh

5. District Education Officer North Bastar District Kanker Chhattisgarh

6. Block Education Officer Block Bhanupratappur District Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Kunal Das, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 02/07/2021

1. Aggrieved by the order of posting dated 27.03.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

-22. The petitioner seems to be the aggrieved of the posting of the petitioner from Bhanupratappur District Kanker to Orchha District Narayanpur.

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 Orchhaa, District Narayanpur and petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the change of posting that too in a core scheduled area.

4. According to the petitioner, he has been working at District Kanker for the last over a decade which itself is a scheduled area and he has now being sent further to a core scheduled area on promotion. He further submits that his wife is also in government employment, therefore under the policy the husband and wife ought to have been kept as far as possible at the same place if not at least at a nearby destination. The last contention of the petitioner is that he has already made a representation before the authorities raising the objections and also highlighting the inconveniences that petitioner shall face.

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.

-37. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit