Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3150 (CHH)

KAMAL NARAYAN CHANDRAKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/251/2025 · 2025-01-23

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:4193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 251 of 2025 • Kamal Narayan Chandrakar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Chandrakar Aged About 61 Years Presently Working As Block Resource Centre, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Under Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Mission Director Samgra Shiksha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The District Mission Director Cum District Collector Samgra Shiksha, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6. The District Education Officer District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7. Shri Rekhraj Sharma Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Bhurka, Block And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. To call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order (Annexure P/1) for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court: 10.2. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 06/01/2024 (Annexure P/1) and allow petitioner to work on the same post with all consequential benefits; 10.3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have not opposed the proposition put forth by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat