Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41776 (CHH)

NAVEEN NISHCHAL KISPOTTA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/10552/2025 · 2025-09-15

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:47568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10552 of 2025 1. Naveen Nishchal Kispotta S/o Salomon Kispotta Aged About 48 Years Working As Teacher Lb, At Middle School Sarima, Block Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Public Instruction Directorate First Floor, C-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4. The District Education Officer Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Block Education Officer Block Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6. The Secretary Rationalization Committee Cum District Education Officer, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.09.17 18:16:11 +0530 2 petition may kindly be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move fresh representation before the Committee constituted vide notification dated 07.07.2025 and the Committee may also be directed to decide the same within stipulated time period. 2. Prayer is allowed. 3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to make representation before the Committee within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order who in turn will decide the same as early as possible in accordance with law. 4. It is made clear that preferring representation or filing of representation does not mean that the order of posting of the petitioner has been stayed by this Court and respondents are not restrained from taking any action for non-compliance of the order of transfer/posting of the petitioner in pursuance of rationalization order passed by them. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish