Santosh Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3725 of 2020 • Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Devprasad Sahu Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Block Resource Person (B.R.P.) At Block Resource Centre , Duldula , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, R/o C/o Mr. Vinod Kumar Kashyap , High School Road Duldula , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, 496334. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,

2. Mission Director Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector Cum District Mission Officer Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.,

5. Block Education Officer Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent s For Petitioner :

Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, ,Advocate.

For State :

Mrs. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 22-09-2020

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as Block Resource Centre

Coordinator (BRCC) at Pathalgaon by order dated 15-10-1996 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the Collector, who is Mission Director of Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur, posted the petitioner from Pathalogan to District Project Office, Jashpur on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC) by order dated 23-12-2011 (Annexure P/2). He would further submit that subsequently, the petitioner was posted at Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Duldula on the post of Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC). Subsequently, Collector-cum-Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur has posted one Dipendra Kumar Sinha in place of the petitioner by order dated 8-2-2016 (Annexure P/5). He would further submit that, under these circumstances, the petitioner has made several representations to the Collector and last representation was made on 30-5-2019 to the Collector and the same may be considered and decided by the Collector within stipulated period.

2. On the other hand, State counsel would submit that the claim made by the petitioner is entirely different on facts than for which representation was filed.

3. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has made limited prayer that he has already moved the representation before the Collector, Jashpur on 30-5-2019 which remained undecided, without making any observation on the merit of the case, it is

directed that the respondent No.3/Collector shall consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner within further period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju