IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. A D^J OF 2011. PETITIONER ^sS^ .t'r'i^yC:^- ^•^s-w:$'^! p^s' ^,^--1 Kirtan lal Karhade, (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Kalhare) S/o. late Shri L. R. Karhade, aged about 50 years, Accountant, Office of Block Education offlcer Doundi, District Durg, (C.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA __£Da—— PETiTSONER RESPONDc_NTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRiT PETITION (S) No. 6071 OF 2011 Kirtan Lal Karhade Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petitlon under Articie 225 of the Constltution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agninotri, J. Present:- ashoK Shri Somkan? Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panei Lav^yer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 13?n day of October, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order daied 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), vvhereby, the petitsoner, working as Accountant at the office of Block Education Officer, Doundi, has been transferred to High Schoo! Mangaltarai, on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Coitector, in accordance with the poiicy decision dated 13 June, 2011. 2. it appears that the transfer orderhas been approved by the Collector, thougn the same has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Weifare Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more tha?t tv^o and haif months, thus, the importance of questioning the transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been chailenged on account ofthe factthat in some cases, the transfer issued by non-competent officer, has been canceEied. iftne transfer order has been complied wlth, there is no question of reconsidering the vaiidity of the same. However, if it is still not compiled wlth, the same shaii not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer Is an Inddence of semce and the petitioner, in ail matters is not likely to suffer, ifthe petitioner has aiready accepted byjoining the new piace of postlng. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legaiity and validity ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. As a result, ifthe petitioner has already not been reileved, the transfer order dated 15th July» 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petittoner, shaii not be given effect to, untii a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in pubilc Interest and in administrative exigency. 5. Accordingly. the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- , _ Sari*K.<«nibuul Judge