Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan vs Smt. Neena Choudhary
2023 Latest Caselaw 433 Chatt

                                      1


                                                                       NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            WPS No. 179 of 2023

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional Office Raipur, Through Vinod
   Kumar S/o Sri Dayashankar Pandey Aged About 52 Years Deputy
   Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Raipur Address- Regional Office,
   Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 Raipur Campus Sector-4 Deendayal Upadhyay
   Nagar Raipur C.G. 492010.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ) Through Its Commissioner 18
   Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg New Delhi 110016.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Estt) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18
   Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg New Delhi 110016.
4. Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya Durg (C.G.) 491001.
                                                              ---- Petitioners
                                   Versus
Smt. Neena Choudhary W/o Shri Ranjan Choudhary, aged about 56 years,
Occupation - PRT Kendriya Vidyalya Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) 491001
                                                            ---- Respondent

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent : None Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

20/01/2023

Heard Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioners.

2. This writ petition is filed against an order dated 21.09.2022 passed by

the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for

short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 893/2022 (for short, the OA),

directing the respondents (writ petitioners herein) to maintain status quo

ante with regard to an order of transfer.

3. On a query of the Court as to what is the status of the OA, Ms.

Pandey submits that arguments have been heard and the case is reserved

for judgment on 14.12.2022.

4. Since the OA is finally heard and the same is reserved for judgment,

we are of the considered opinion that, at this juncture, it is not necessary

for us to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the

legality or otherwise of the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal.

                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                    (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
                    CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE




Amit