Ravi Kumar Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6988 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                       NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      Writ Appeal No. 618 of 2022

Ravi Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Haldhar Narayan Pandey Aged About 41
Years Assistant Teacher L.B. R/o Village Ghughra Post Katgori Tahsil
Sonhat District Koriya (C.G.)

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education
     Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya
     Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

2.   The Under Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya
     Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

3.   The Collector Koriya District Koriya (C.G.)

4.   The District Education Officer Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya (C.G.)

5.   The Block Education Officer Sonhat District Koriya (C.G.)

                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

21.11.2022

Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.09.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6197 of 2022,

dismissing the writ petition, wherein an order of transfer dated

07.09.2022, transferring the petitioner from Government Primary School,

Ghughra, Block-Sonhat, District Koriya to Government Primary School,

Khadhaura, Block-Khadgawa, District Koriya, was challenged.

3. A perusal of the order learned Single Judge would go to show that a

submission was advanced that the petitioner was transferred to a new

District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur, which is not permissible in

terms of the Clause 1.1 of policy dated 12.08.2022.

4. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention advanced by

observing that when the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 was passed,

the school to which the petitioner was transferred was in the same District

and that the new District came into being on 08.09.2022.

5. A perusal of the policy dated 12.08.2022 would go to show that the

Collector can pass transfer orders from 16.08.2022 to 10.09.2022 in

respect of Class-III and Class-IV officers within the District after obtaining

the approval of the Minister-in-charge of the District.

6. Order of transfer dated 07.09.2022 goes to show that approval was

obtained from the Minister-in-charge of the District.

7. Having regard to the above position, the view taken by the learned

Single Judge on the submission that the petitioner has been transferred

to a new District, cannot be faulted with.

8. Mr. Pandey submits that the petitioner is teaching Mathematics and

he is also a Cluster Education Co-ordinator. In support of the contention

that he is teaching Mathematics, he has drawn our attention to page 20

and 21 (Annexures P/4 and P/5) of the writ petition papers issued by

Cluster-in-charge and Sarpanch, respectively.

9. The petitioner was working as Shikshakarmi Grade-III on and from

29.07.2005 and thereafter, his services were absorbed by an order dated

10.08.2018 in the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) E, under the School

Education Department. The order dated 10.08.2018 demonstrates that

the petitioner was absorbed in Primary School, Ghughra as an Arts

teacher.

10. Though petitioner has not indicated his educational qualifications,

Mr. Sharma submits on specific instruction that the petitioner had

completed higher secondary in Arts with subjects Hindi, English,

Economics, Political Science and Geography.

11. It is submitted by Mr. Pandey that in the school where the petitioner

is presently posted, there is no Mathematics teacher, and therefore, the

petitioner was asked to teach Mathematics.

12. Annexure P/4, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner,

indicates that the petitioner is teaching Mathematics in the Cluster in

which school he is teaching Mathematics, is not clear.

13. It is not understood how a teacher appointed in the Arts stream is

teaching Mathematics. Assuming that he is teaching Mathematics, as the

petitioner is absorbed as an Arts teacher, the petitioner does not have

any inherent right to teach a subject for which he is not appointed.

14. This above submission was not canvassed before the learned

Single Judge as would appear from the order of the learned Single

Judge. Yet as Mr. Pandey has advanced arguments on that aspect of the

matter, we considered it appropriate to deal with the same.

15. On due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere with the

order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed.

                          Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                  (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Sanjay Agrawal)
                      Chief Justice                               Judge




Brijmohan