Dismissed

Om Prakash Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2022WPS/6512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a transfer of an Assistant Teacher to another school on the grounds of violation of State Transfer Policy. The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate Committee and maintained status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation before the Committee; status quo maintained for five weeks.

Om Prakash Goswami Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6512 of 2022

¶5

Om Prakash Goswami S/o R.B. Goswami Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (L B) Government Primary School Dongatarai, Block Pondi-Uproda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Police Station & Post Rakhi, District Raipur (CG)

¶9

Collector Korba, District : Korba (CG)

¶10

District Education Officer Korba, District Korba (CG)

¶11

Block Education Officer Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (CG)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Monica Thakur, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Govt. Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

17/10/2022

¶17

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.9.2022 by which petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher LB (Science), has been transferred from Government Primary School Dongatarai, Block Pondi Uproda to Government Primary School, Block Pondi Uproda, on administrative ground.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that as against 37 students studying in school where petitioner is presently posted, there are only three teachers including Head Master. Petitioner is teacher of Science subject, whereas other two are

¶19

¶20

of Arts subject. As per Clause 3.2 of Transfer Policy dated 12.8.2022 formulated by the State Government, such transfers will not be effected which make a school teacherless of a particular subject. In case at hand also, after transfer of petitioner from his present place of posting, there will be no teacher in school to teach Science subject to students. Hence, impugned transfer order, so far as it relates to petitioner, is contrary to transfer policy issued by the State Government. She also submits that till date petitioner has not been relieved from his present place of posting to join at transferred place.

¶21

Learned State Counsel opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that as per his instructions, there are only 37 students in the school where petitioner is posted and in case of requirement, Head Master also teaches students. However, he submits that he is not having any instruction with respect to submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is only teacher of Science subject in the school where he is posted.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with writ petition.

¶23

Considering submissions of learned counsel for parties and taking note of Clause 3.2 of Transfer Policy, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this writ petition pending, awaiting response of respondents, and ends of justice will be served if this writ petition is disposed of at this

¶24

¶25

stage permitting petitioner to file representation against his transfer before Committee constituted under Transfer Policy.

¶26

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting petitioner to submit representation before the Committee constituted under Transfer Policy, within a period of two weeks from today, raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition. On making such representation, the Committee shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶27

For a period of five weeks or till decision on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, Status Quo, as it exists today, with respect to posting of petitioner shall be maintained.

¶28

Certified copy as per rules.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶31

roshan/-

Om Prakash Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tameshwari Singh Vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited

M/S Beejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chhatttisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited

Anil Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhdayal Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pharharu Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lekhram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh