Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7922 (CHH)

HEERA LAL DHURVE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1065/2025 · 2025-02-13

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1065 of 2025 1 - Heera Lal Dhurve S/o Chaitram Dhurve Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Koylari, P.S. Singhanpuri Jungle, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer, Pandariya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Damendra Kumar Markam S/o Janakram Markam Aged About 45 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher, Current Acting In-Charge Government Primary School, Pipartola (Chote), Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advcoate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. I. A. No. 02 of 2025, application for exemption from filing legible copy of annexures, is not pressed as documents have already been filed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after revocation of his suspension order, he has been transferred and posted to another school which is about 90 kms’ away from his original place of posting Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 from where he was suspended. 3. Learned State counsel oposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submits that it cannot be a right of petitioner to ask for posting him in a particular place. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he may be permitted to make representation afresh as there are several vacant post in which petitioner can be posted. 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation before concerned authorities raising all his grievances within 10 days and, in turn, concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days. 6. It is directed that no cohesive steps shall be taken against petitioner till decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge