High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1639/2017withdrawn

Omprakash Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-04-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1639 of 2017 • Omprakash Sahu S/o Shri Kashinath Sahu, Aged About 42 Years Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), R/o Ward No. 07, Nagar Panchayat Magarlod, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. District Panchayat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Collector, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

4. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

6. Block Education Officer, Kurud, Block Magarlod, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

7. Headmaster, Government Primary School, Deori, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

8. Headmaster, Government Primary School Bagdehi, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

9. Headmaster, Government Primary School, Kathiya, Block Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri RS Baghel, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Arvind Dubey, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 07/04/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the relieving order dated 15/10/2015 issued by the Collector Dhamtari, whereby it is alleged that under the garb of rationalization process, the petitioner who is Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) was relieved for his posting at Raipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the similar like nature of petition the High Court by an order dated 23/12/2016 in bunch of petitions have quashed the like nature of order,therefore petitioner in this case wants to withdraw the instant petition to make representation before the appropriate authority so that similar like nature of orders may be passed.

3. Learned State counsel do not dispute the same.

4. Considering the fact that the cases of similar nature have already been disposed of wherein law has been laid down by this court, petitioner is also given liberty.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation within a period of one month from today. Respective authority shall decide the same within further period of two months.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Ashu