D. D. Ratre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7045 of 2019

1. D. D. Ratre, S/o Late Shri T. R. Ratre, Aged About 42 Years, Presently Posted As Lecturer Sports (Physical Education) At District Education And Training Institute (Diet), Korba, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

4. Anil Kumar Mishra, Posted As Assistant District Sports Officer, At District Education Officer, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. Adv. Gen.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04.09.2019

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 22.08.2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Office of District Education Officer, Korba to Prabhari Pracharya, Sharirik Shiksha Mahavidhyalaya Pendra, District:Bilaspur, (C.G.).

2. The ground of challenge show the petitioner is more aggrieved by the posting of Respondent No. 4 whose name appears at serial no. 4 in the impugned order, who has been posted from Raipur to Raipur

-2and has made incharge Assistant Director. The grievance seems to be in respect of against the person to whom charge is being given, rather than transfer the petitioner from Korba to Bilaspur.

3. He further submits that the petitioner has been working at Korba for the last 3 years and as such, the petitioner seems to have completed his normal tenure of posting of 3 years.

4. This Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The reluctance to entertain the writ petition by this Court would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the State Government by making a suitable representation against the posting of Respondent No. 4 as incharge Assistant Director.

5. Considering the facts of the case, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondent within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondent shall consider the same within a period of further 45 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul