Rajendra Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6654 of 2022.

The challenge in the writ petition was to an order of transfer dated 30.09.2022 whereby the petitioner, while posted as Incharge Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Saragaon, Block-Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:

"5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has only five months of service to attain age of superannuation. Further certificate issued by Principal, Higher Secondary School, Saragaon shows that post of Lecturer (Maths) is not vacant in the school, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage instead of keeping this petition pending and taking reply from the State, directing the petitioner to submit representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy within a period of 10 days from today and and if such representation is filed, the Committee is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with copy order passed by this Court.

For a period of five weeks or till decision of representation whichever is earlier status-quo as it exists today with respect to place of posting of petitioner shall be maintained by the parties.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions."

Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.10.2022.

Mr. Shrivastava submits that certain developments have now taken place and the respondent No. 3 of this appeal, who is transferred to the original place of the petitioner as a regular Block Development Officer, is interfering in discharging his duties.

The petitioner having implemented the order of the learned Single Judge by filing a representation, is estopped from preferring an appeal against the very same order, which he has complied with. A litigant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. If there is any other grievance, the petitioner may take recourse to appropriate proceedings.

In that view of the matter, we find no good reason to entertain this appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.