1 / 3 2025:CGHC:18524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2755 of 2025 1 - Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Loknath Gupta Aged About 36 Years Working On The Post Of In Charge Circle Organizer Janpad Panchayat Pratappur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Schedule Cast And Schedule Tribe Development Newa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Tribal Schedule Cast And Schedule Tribe Development New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector (Tribal Development ) Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Development Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Block Pratappur District - Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Ranjay Kumar Singh Presently Working on The Post of Headmaster (Primary School) Posted At Govt. Primary School Sadakpara Block Pratappur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the 2 / 3 Annexure P-1 dated 05/03/2025 which is decided by the Collector pursuant to the order dated 30/01/2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.859/2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has preferred a writ petition questioning the order dated 09/01/2025, by which, the petitioner has been repatriated back to the original place of posting i.e. Government Middle School, Piparpara, Songara, Block Pratappur. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of thirty days. Learned counsel further submits that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 05/03/2025 without considering the grievance of the petitioner properly. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the subsequently writ petition is not maintainable as earlier writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the State to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within stipulated period and by considering the case of the petitioner, the Collector has passed the order and again the petitioner has filed a fresh writ petition questioning the same issue, which is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. The order of the Collector shows that the said order has been passed by the Collector by considering the representation 3 / 3 submitted by the petitioner pursuance to the order dated 30/01/2025 of this Court passed in WPS No.859/2025, hence, once the grievance of the petitioner has been adjudicated by this Court and the same has been disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation and after consideration, the Collector has passed a detailed order dated 05/03/2025, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep