Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/902/2026 of DHANESHWAR SIDAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 27 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 902 of 2026 Dhaneshwar Sidar S/o Bansidhar Sidar Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Darramuda, Block- Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus 1 -
CGHC010318312026
2026:CGHC:42263
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 902 of 2026
Dhaneshwar Sidar S/o Bansidhar Sidar Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Darramuda, Block- Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Joint Director (Education) Education Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Collector, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
6 - Block Education Officer Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
7 - Sandeep Kumar Panda Presently Working As Assistant Teacher
(L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Midmida, Block- Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant
:
Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Applicant has filed this application (MCC) seeking modification/correction in the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 11981 of 2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in paragraph no. 7, due to typographical error, instead of “rationalization” the word “regularization” has been mentioned. As the writ petition is filed challenging the posting of petitioner(therein) under the Rationalization Policy of the State Government, therefore, proper order after correcting the said typographical error may be passed.
3. Learned counsel for the State do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties as also perused the order dated 28.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 11981 of 2025.
5. From perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition, as also contents of order dated 28.02.2026 passed in the said writ petition, I am of the considered view that in the third line of paragraph no. 7 the word “regularization” has been mentioned due to typographical error instead of “rationalization”, therefore, it is directed that in paragraph no. 7 of the order dated 28.02.2026 the word “regularization” be read as “rationalization”. It is ordered accordingly.
6. Registry is directed to make this order as part of record of WPS No.11981 of 2025.
7. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application (MCC) stands disposed of. Sd/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen