Dr. Preeta Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7075 of 2019 Dr. Preeta Lal D/o Late Dr. Harbans Lal Aged About 57 Years Assistant Professor, Department Of Economics, Dr. Radhabai Govt. Navin Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, R/o House No.- 1, Park Street No. 4, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Under Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Dr. Shraddha Mishra Asst. Prof. Botany, Rajiv Gandhi Government College, Simga, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh., District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/09/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 21.08.2019, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Dr. Radhabai Government Navin Girl College Raipur to Rajiv Gandhi Government College, Simga, Baloda Bazar.

2. The ground of challenge is that the subject of the petitioner has been shown to be that of Botany subject, whereas according to the petitioner, she is not a teacher of Botany faculty, but is a faculty of Economics and therefore the impugned order is bad.

3. The other ground of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred, so as to accommodate the respondent No.3, who has been transferred at her own request and that the respondent No.3 in

fact is a teacher of Botany subject and if the respondent No.3 was to be accommodated, she should have been accommodated against the Botany subject teacher by the establishment, not the petitioner who belongs to an entirely different subject.

4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the respondents in turn shall decide the same within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

5. Meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved