Dageshwar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3425 of 2021

1. Dageshwar Verma S/o Shri Seva Ram Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Chhapora, Devari, 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. Directorate Of Public Instrucations Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

For State : Shri Ishan Verma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09.07.2021 .

1. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the posting which the petitioner has been given i.e. at the Durg Division in T Cadre on the post of Teacher (English).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the first instance when he was called for counseling preference were being sought for and the petitioner had given his preference at Raipur in the (E Cadre & T Cadre) as the first and second preference and District Durg in the (E Cadre & T Cadre) as the third and fourth preference and he has been posted at Durg Division in the (T-Cadre) that was his fourth preference that the petitioner had exercised so far as preference is concerned. According to the petitioner the second round of counseling is still going on and the persons who are less meritorious than the petitioner would now have an opportunity of being posted

-2at Raipur division which was otherwise the first and second preference in (E- Cadre & T-Cadre) of the petitioner which he did not get.

3. This court on an earlier occasion in WPS No.2208 of 2021 has already vide its order dated 05.04.2021 held that the petitioner as such cannot claim as a matter of right for being considered for posting at a particular place. That the option sought for was only the choice of preference so far as posting is concerned and as regards the posting, it is purely within the power and domain of the authorities concerned. This court in the said writ petition has further observed that if at all if the petitioner is not happy with the place of posting or has some personal inconvenience as regards the place of posting, the only option that the petitioner has is to approach the authorities by way of making a suitable representation for an appropriate modification of change of place of posting.

4. Given the said view of this court in the said writ petition, the present writ petition also stands disposed of in similar terms leaving open the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by making a fresh representation, in addition to the representations that he has made in the past and which the respondent authorities may consider in accordance with rules, regulations and policy governing the filed.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge