t Cf -.1-^ /• gai.^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHMATTIseARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETCON (S) N0. ^-^ 6 /2011 PETETIONER A^ RESPON&ENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ^•Pankii Ram Dhananjay S/o. Shekhu Ram Dhannanjay (Head Master), aged about : 45 years, R/o. Village : Radho Navagaon, Post ; Khertha Bazar, Tahsil : Daundilohara, District: ^urg (C.6.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Throu9h the Secretary, 6eneral Administration Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur(C.6.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.). District Education Officer, Durg, District: Durg (C.6.). The Collector, Durg, District ; Durg (C.G-). .Block Education Officer, Balod, District : Durg (C.6.). WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE , CONSTETUTEON OF INDIA . 1 The petitioner named dbove, most humbly;jQd respectfully begs to submit as under; /^- ^- DETAILS OF THE PETITION ^ 1 % 8 {^•\ y!'^~^i x^i,^/ PETITIONER HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5716 OF 2011 Panuk Ram Dhananjay RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wrrt Petition underArticte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present;- Shri P.K.Patet, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Collector, in accordance with th6 policy decision dated 13 June, 2011. 2. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, though the same has been passed by the District Education Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two months, thus, the importance of questioning the transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non- competent officer, has been cancelled. If the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. However, if it is still not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an incidence of service and the petitionei:, in all matters is not likely to suffer, if the petitioner has already accepted by joining the new place of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order, 4. As a result; if the petitioner has already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15' July, 201 1 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner, shall not.be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and in administrative exigency. 5. Accordingty,, the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Satish K. Agnihctri Judge