Chattisgarh High Court
Motiram Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 82 of 2022
Motiram Kashyap S/o Shri Ramphal Kashyap Aged About 54 Years
Working As In-Charge Block Education Officer At Block Education Officer,
Block And Tahsil Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya,
Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector, Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh
4. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Tiwari, Aged About 54
Years Working As Assistant Block Education Officer And Posted At
Block Education Officer Bastar Block And Tahsil Bastar District
Bastar Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Shailendra
Bajpai, Advocates
__________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
22.02.2022
Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Shailendra Bajpai,
learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an interim order dated
17.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5155 of
2021, whereby the learned Single Judge stayed the order dated
27.07.2021, passed in reiteration of the order dated 08.02.2021, by which
the appellant herein was transferred as In-charge Block Education
Officer, Bastar.
3. The substantive post of the writ petitioner as well as of appellant is
Lecturer. The writ petitioner is holding a post of Assistant Block Education
Officer on In-charge basis. The post of Assistant Block Education Officer
is below the post of Block Education Officer. According to the learned
counsel for the parties, post of Block Education Officer is equivalent to
the post of Principal.
4. While the case of the writ petitioner was that he is senior to
appellant, contention of the appellant is that he is senior to the writ
petitioner according to the seniority list. Order of learned Single Judge
indicates that the State has taken a stand that the writ petitioner is senior
to the appellant. If that be so, it is not understood why the writ petitioner
was placed lower in the seniority list.
5. Be that as it may.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances, when the appellant is
sought to be transferred to the promotional post on In-charge basis, we
are not inclined to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
