6 •-< ^ 1-^t IN THE HIGM COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] N0. 42-^ /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS \y^> ^j^s> '.•••'tr'e-"^- ^;'\ ^*** ..-••'^^''\>'" .^^<i7yv..;"' ^yy Vs Uttam Chandra AAeshram, son of Late Shri Baldev Ram Meshram, aged 51 years, Senior Secretary- Krishi UpaJ Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur(CG) . 1.5tate of Chhattisgarh Through; the Secretary, Department of Agr'iculture, Mantralay, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. -^ . . : . ^' - 2. Chhattisgar'h Krishi Vipnan Board, through its Managing Dir'ector, Beej Bhgwan, Chhattisgarh Hotel, Ravigr'am, Telibandha, Raipur (C6) ^ 3. The President, Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C6) 4. The Managing Dir'ector, Chhattisgarh Krishi Vipnan Board, Beej Bhawan, Chhattisgarh Hotel, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C&) 5. Shri Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, son of A dge notknown to the petitioner', Secretary- Krishi ^ ^ 1 Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazar, t)istrict Raipur (CS) WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTIGLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA. ^!te~-^<w^fc7 » ^/^'^SSi: y Arun ^9 HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR PETITtONER RESPONDENTS WRn- PETITIQN {S)LJN052 OF 2011 Uttam Chandra Meshrani Veraus State o»GhhatBsgafh & (Writ PeUBon underArticle 22©oftheConsUftttion ef Indta) Single Bench: Hon'bte ShriSatish K. AgnihoW, J. Present:- Shri Ri(jeevShrivasteva,Aclvocate forttie p^itioner. Shn N.N, Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe Strte. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.2 to 4. 1. 2. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 24"' day of February, 2011) Heaid leamed counset for the parties. Shri Shrroastava, leamed counset for the f^JBoner submte Biat dwpite observations made by the Supreme Court in 0»rectof <rf Scfcocrf Educatkm, MadfasarKl Offsefsv. O. Kanifwa ThevanafsiAnoSw'.Vfe respondent authority is making ttanster, when the chtldren <rf eroplf^ae are studying. Aceording to toe petjtioner, the said aeUon of the respondents amounts to oven-eaching or overriding to the observations made by the Supreme Gourt in OfwctoroCSchool EdueaScsR (supra). 3. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel for the responderit No.2 to4, sytimitsthat in view of tte obseivations made by the Supreme Gourt in OftBeter of Schoo/Ectocafibn (supra), the impugned transfer order passed by the authorittes shall not be given effect to filtthe !astdayofApril,2eM1. 4. Accordingly, Uie writpeUUon stands disposedof. __. " Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ii iii^+a '1994 Sqap (2)SCC c66