@@ 1N THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. §2v\% 0f 2011 PETITIONER: /Laxman Prasad Rathore, S/o Radhe lal Rathore, Aged about 46 years, Posted as Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Kotiya, Block Bilha, District Bilasour, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: / 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, raipur (C.G.). The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur (C.G.) 3) VThe Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4) The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 5) The Block Education Officer,Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) E RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W @\ HIGH COlJsRT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5248 OF 2011 PETITIONER Laxman Prasad Rathore Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 9m day of September, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner is posted at Government Primary School, Kotiya, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur, whereas in the impugned order the present posting place of the petitioner has been mentioned as ‘Kokiya’ instead of ‘Kotiya’. 3. In addition to the aforesaid ground, the petitioner has made some other grounds for challenging the transfer order, which are not acceptable in view of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in umpteen number of oases 4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the present posting place of the petitioner, as aforestated, has not been mentioned properly in the impugned transfer order, the same shall be corrected and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of one week. He further submits that till then the impugned order dated 15.07.2011, in respect ofthe petitioner, shall not begiven effect to. 5. ln view of the above, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SdA Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r