1 2025:CGHC:28393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3295 of 2025 Bhagwantin Sidar W/o Shri Dashelal Diwakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No.13, Village Jurali, Thana Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - Triloki Public School Through Its Principal Block B, Lakhanpur Road, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the following relief(s) : VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.28 11:43:34 +0530 2 “The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent authorities to issue the transfer certificate of the Son of the petitioner namely Lucky Raj Diwakar from the respondent no.4 school. 10.2) Any other consequential relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioner is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of respondent authorities in not issuing the transfer certificate, despite numerous oral requests and the representations, is highly arbitrary and against the principles of equity and justice. He further contended that to provide better education to its child, the petitioner wished to shift its ward to a different school and wished to got him admitted in the Shakuntala Vidyalaya, Bhilai. The action of the respondents is violative of the fundamental right of education of the petitioner and its child. He further contended that the petitioner is having the custody of its Child and its deserted husband has no right in making decisions and the respondent no.4 cannot act in such a manner on the basis of vague request. The inaction of the respondents is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to choose its school. 3 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit the application/representation before the concerned authorities raising her all grievances as raised in this writ petition. On making such representation/application, concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible as per relevant rules, regulations and law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court and shall decide the case of the petitioner on its own merits. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant