1 2025:CGHC:51425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12011 of 2025 1 - Goverdhan Sahani S/o Shri Hari Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pujaripal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Rukhmani Markam W/o Shri Man Sai Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Chikarpal, Post Pakel, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - Pushplata W/o Shri Laxminath Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Kanjipani, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Shanti Manjhi W/o Shri Parmeshwar Manjhi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Kanjipani, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 5 - Vasudev Markam S/o Shri Hirmaram Markam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Urmapal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 6 - Pankaj Kumar Dhruw S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Dhruw Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Chhindgarh, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh 7 - Bindeshwari Markam W/o Shri Dinesh Markam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 8 - Sushila Pujari W/o Shri Benda Potti Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Dornapal, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Office, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 15/10 /2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.16 12:02:16 +0530 2 Sukma District- Sukma (C.G.) by which the representations preferred by the petitioners have been rejected. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the petitioners were appointed on various dates as detailed above:- S.No. Name of the petitioner Date of Appointment 1 Goverdhan Sahani 16.04.2013 2 Rukhmani Markam 15.05.2011 3 Pushpalata 16.05.2011 4 Smt. Shanti Manjhi 16.05.2011 5 Vasudev Markam 16.05.2011 6 Pankaj Kumar Dhruw 16.12.2013 7 Bindeshwari Markam 13.10.2009 8 Sushila Pujari 04.10.2008 3. The petitioners insisted that they be posted in the School Education Department and also preferred representations before the authorities which were not considered by the department, therefore, they preferred petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 5686/2024 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 directed the respondents to decide the representations preferred by the petitioners within 30 days in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners preferred representations before the respondent authorities, which have been rejected by respondent No. 2/ Collector, Sukma vide impugned order dated 18.06.2025. This order is being assailed by the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that earlier the Tribal Development Department and the School Education Department 3 were one and the same and the petitioners were initially appointed on compassionate ground in the School Education Department as mentioned in their appointment orders. He would further submit that the the Tribal Development Department and the School Education Department has been bifurcated by the State in the year 2015 and since then they are claiming that they are appointed in the School Education Department, therefore, they should be posted in the School School Department only but they were posted as deputation in the Tribal Development Department. In pursuance of direction issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, they preferred representations before the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 18.06.2025 rejected the representations of the petitioner and would pray setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were given appointment on compassionate ground in the Tribal Development Department only, therefore, they will remain posted in that department forever and they cannot be transferred in the School Education Department and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. When this Court posed specific query to learned counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners have been appointed in the School Education Department or Tribal Development Department then he would refer to the appointment order (Annexure P/2). From perusal of Annexure P/2, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioners were 4 appointed in the Tribal Development Department only on compassionate ground and he is not able to point out any rules or regulation which provides that the petitioners can be transferred from one department to another department. In absence of any specific provisions, rules and regulation and considering the fact that the petitioners were appointment on compassionate ground in the Tribal Development Department, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 which warrants any interference by this Court. 8. The writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun