Partly allowed

Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Oct 2022WPS/6211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned transfer order against a Head Master. The Court set aside the order noting it prima facie appeared wrong as it related the petitioner to a place of posting where he was not posted. The order to amend the document has been considered by the respondent State.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order dated 10.09.2022 is set aside as it relates to the petitioner. The transfer order is to be amended to reflect the correct posting.

Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6211 of 2022

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Shukla S/o Late Ramanand Shukla Aged About 41 Years Post Head Master (Primary School) Posted At Govt. Primary School Kotulbeda, Block Koilibeda, District- Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Collector District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

District Education Officer District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

____________________ For Petitioner	__________________________________________ :Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For State	:Shri Amrito Das, Addl. A.G.

¶13

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

12/10/2022

Heard.

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 10.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner who is posted as Head Master has been shown to be transferred from Primary School, Badrangi, Block- Koyalibeda to Primary School, Sonpal, Block- Durgkondal

¶18

-2-

¶19

on administrative ground.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as Assistant Teacher was promoted to post of Head Master, Primary School vide order dated 22.06.2022 and after his promotion, he was posted as Head Master in Primary School Kotulbeda Block- Koyalibeda. He contended that since the date of his promotion, petitioner is working at Primary School, Kotulbeda. By the impugned order of transfer passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has been shown to be transferred from Primary School, Badrangi to Primary School, Sonpal. Hence, transfer order so far it relates to the petitioner is factually wrong.

¶21

Learned counsel or the State submits that as per observation made on the last date of hearing, he has sought instruction and as per his instructions, impugner order of transfer so far as it relates to the petitioner is in the process of amendment.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, impugned order of transfer prima facie appears to be wrong as the respondent authority cannot transfer any employee from a place or office who is not posted in a particular place of posting.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Therefore, the impugned order of transfer dated 10.09.2022 (Annexure P-2), as it exists today, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-------/--/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

Praveen

Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Lafarge India Private Limited (Now Known as Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd.) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mayaram Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Supriya Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Urmila Yadav Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited