Dismissed

Purshottam Kumar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Feb 2023WA/53/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal by an Assistant Teacher challenging his transfer to accommodate another teacher's request. The court held transfer policies and service rules justified the order, rejecting the claim of arbitrariness and dismissing an application for impleadment.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 2 of 2023 dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.

Purshottam Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2023

¶5

Purshottam Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Rambhagwan Dubey, aged about 40 years, working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) and posted at Government Primary School Maharoomkala, Block Khairagarh, District KhairagarhChhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

District Education Officer, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Jitendra Kumar Baghel, working as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) at Government Primary School Maharoomkala, Block Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶18

10.02.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

¶20

heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶21

¶22

I.A. No. 2 of 2023 is an application for amendment to implead Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and Departmental Coordination Committee, Office of Director Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) as respondents.

¶23

The appeal is preferred against an order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 288 of 2023.

¶24

The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 02.12.2022, whereby the representation submitted by the appellant was rejected and the order dated 10.09.2022, by which the Collector had transferred the appellant while holding the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) at Government Primary School, Mahroomkala, Block-Khairagarh to Government Primary School, Chhuiha, Block-Chhuikhadan.

¶25

Having regard to the subject matter of dispute, we are not inclined to allow I.A. No. 2 of 2023. Accordingly, I.A. No.2 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶26

The appellant is holding the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) at Government Primary School, Mahroomkala for the last 8 years. The transfer of respondent No. 3 was to the post held by the appellant and that of the appellant to the post held by the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was holding the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) at Government Primary School, Chhuiha for last 5 years. The transfer of respondent No.3 was effected on his own request.

¶27

Ms. Shukla has produced materials to demonstrate before the Court that respondent No. 3 had submitted a representation to the appropriate authority indicating that he may be transferred to the schools either at Indamara, Bakal and Bhodiya on the grounds of illness of his

¶28

¶29

mother and he being the lone male member of the family to take care of her. However, his request was not considered for the schools at the aforesaid places and ultimately, decision was taken to transfer him to the post held by the appellant.

¶30

Although, respondent No. 3 was transferred on his own request, in the present factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be countenanced as argued by Mr. Shrivastava that solely on the ground to accommodate the respondent No. 3, the appellant has been transferred. It is to be remembered that the appellant and the respondent No.3 had been at the same places for the last 8 years and last 5 years, respectively.

¶31

It is also to be noted that according to transfer policy in place, normal tenure of posting in one place is 3 years.

¶32

In that view of the matter, we see no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (P. Sam Koshy) Chief Justice Judge

¶34

Brijmohan

Purshottam Kumar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Kumar Dubey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kumudini Dewangan Vs Shri K. S. Mandavi

Jagdish Paikra Vs Vinay Kumar Lengeh

Bhavesh Verma Vs Dr. Priyanka Shukla

Harishankar Patel Vs Yashwant Kumar

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs Samay Lal

Devashish Rai Vs G.S. Thakur