$§NGLE BEMM mas. CD é O»? Igg/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. {Si N0. §ODL [2011 PETITIONER : / Halakdas S/o Lakshman, Aged about 50 years, Presently posted and working as Dresser at Veterinary Hospital Bario, Block Rajpur, District Surguja. (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through—Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry)», Mantralaya, D.K.S. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, District Surguja, (C.G.). Assistant Director, Vetenary Services, Ambikapur, District Surguja(C.G.). Jogiram S/o Butanram aged about 50 years presently working and posted as Dresser at Veterinary Hospital Bhaiyathan, Block Surajpur, district Surguja (C.G.) Bhawan, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Mahendra Dubey. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao: Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. ‘ i9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)'No. 5002 0f2011 VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 29 day of August, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby. the petitioner, working as Dresser at Veterinary Hospital. Bario, Block Rajpur, has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Ambikapur, showing it to be on his own request. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no application on the pait ofthe petitioner to transfer him from one place to another place. Thus, the impugied order to transfer the petitioner on the ground ofbeing on his own request, is bad in law and does not come within the purview ofadministrative exigency. Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that if it is so, appropriate shall be passed keeping in view the above infirmities in the impugied order. Till then. the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner shall not be given effect to. In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated observation. l Sd/-' Satish K. AgnihOtri Judge ‘ ‘ .‘ PETITIONER : Halakdas.