Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Archana Banerjee vs State Of Chhattisgarh 102 ... on 28 November, 2017
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4055 of 2017
Smt. Archana Banerjee W/o S. Banerjee, Aged About 61 Years
Occupation Principal, Higher Secondary School, Sarkanda,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Additional Secretary, School
Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Devki Agrawal, Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Baima Nagoi, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. with Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/11/2017
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017 and 8.11.2017 by which she has been transferred from Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Sarkanda to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Baima Nagoi and subsequently, amended the place of posting and transferred to Govt. Girls High School, Baima, Dist. Bilaspur on the ground of administrative exigency.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original transfer order was also earlier on the ground that the place of petitioner's posting is wrongly mentioned. However, the same has been corrected subsequently during pendency of the petition. It is submitted that petitioner is challenging the amended order also by moving an amendment application. In view of the events which have taken place during pendency of the writ petition, it is deemed that the petitioner is also challenging the subsequently corrected order dated 08.11.2017.
3. Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.
4. Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 4 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.
5. For a period of 12 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties only after incorporation of the amendment by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Sd/-
Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh/Gowri