High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4589/2017disposed off

Smt. Deepak Kumbhaj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-10-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4589 of 2017

1. Smt. Deepak Kumbhaj W/o Shri Gyanchandra Kumbhaj Aged About 39 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Primary School, Boirdih, R/o Murethitola, Block - Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The District Education Officer, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Ambagarh Chowki, District - Rajnandgaron Chhattisgarh.

4. The Block Education Officer, Ambagarh Chowki, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

5. Praveen Kumar Mandavi, Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Primary School, Boirdih, Block- Ambagarh Chowki, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 30/10/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22-8-2017 by which the services of the petitioner has been transferred from

Primary School, Boirdih to Primary School, Mungeshitola. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is suffers from frequent transfer because within a period of 18 months the petitioner has been transferred without there being any administrative exigency.

2. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may prefer a representation before the respondent No.2 within two weeks from today and thereafter, the respondent No.2, in consultation with the respondent No.3, shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

3. For a period of six weeks, the status quo, with respect to placement of the petitioner, as it exists today, shall be maintained.

4. 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 representation, 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 Gowri