@ IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N(S)No.Lt:}g,6 0f2011 $5ng‘le Bench i PETITIONER : Shesh Narayan Gupta, S/o R.D. Gupta, Aged about 50 years, Upper Division Teacher, Posted at Govt. Midlle School, Junwani, Block Masturi, Dist Bilaspur, (C.G.) VERSUS /, RESPONDENTS: 1) The State of‘ Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, raipur (C.G.). /V 2) The Director, Director, Directorate of Public Public- Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) /. 3) The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) «r 4) The Director District Education Officer, Bilaspur; Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) 5) The Headmaster Govt. Middle School Junwani, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HKEH COURT GF CHHATTESGARH t B§LAS§3UR WRIT ?ET§T§ON {S3 NC. 4?$6 6F 291’! ' ?¢?ITK§NER €3hesh Naravan Gama Versus RES?GNDENTS The giaée of Chhatiisaam & Gthers (Vwii Feiiiim‘a under Awcie 226 sf the Const§tu§§on a? im‘Ea) Sing§e Semh : Hmfbie Shr§ 3atis‘n K. Agnihotri, J. Ps’asent :- Shi ShaEienéra Daisey, Rdvccafe for the petitianea Shii i-‘xzun Sao, Government Advccate fix the State. GEEER {@RRL‘; Vi» *{Paaxsed an this 30m dav of August. 2011) ’:. $ha§§enge in ‘xhés pet§tion is to ihe order &aied 15.G72011 {Arinexure P-‘a 1, nasseé by the {espondent Ncs‘ wheyebv. ihe petmoner working as Upper Divis§on Teacher at Middie Sci-100i Junwam, Biock Masturi, §1as beam ia'ansfei'fr: i0 Mddie $choo! Viehamw. Mungeli 2. Shri Dubev‘ ieametf; counsei aapeafmg for éhe petitkmef sui‘xmits thai ihe impumed transfer ardef has beer. gassed Without considering the fact ihat the setitioner was ‘iniiiaiiy transferred on 24.10.2000, iherea§ea 0E1 15.01261S and new within a peried of ene year. the impugned cruer has been hassed. Accercimg to Shri Dubey, this comes within a defih’stiora (3f ‘frequent :ransfers’. secondiy. the transfer erder was hot ciurv approved ’oy rhe mihisrer-ih-charge aha? thir‘diy, ihere ie ho mehiioh of the reasons or” transfer. 3. T; e oontenrion of Shri Dubey! on ah ihree grounés faris; firstiy, Et cannor some wi‘rhrn a eefénrhon of "frequenr transfers’. as the trans‘fer was made not wiihin a short oeriod but in rwo years. two times and ihis is a ihirci transfer. So far as the second contention that the transfer order has not been aooroved b‘y' the minister—in-charge is the Siate has fiie before this Court, wherein, conoerneti, produced a i s ciear thai’ihe eniire transfer iist has been approveoi by the ministé?-§n-Cha?ge. §“e ihi? ‘ .“ason that no reasons have been given n me tfaiisfei' Gwer am}, a5 5uch, it is mi we a£§m§nistfative exigenw m" pubiia’; ii}tei'est, is mted i6 ba rejec’ied on the ground that it i3 mt rxecessary ’{G wrik in each and every trarasfer order any Eaar‘iiwiai‘ ?‘eason3 whey} ihe té‘anssfef has bear. made. The mesumpt‘aon i3 it”? aE the t3’an3fer$ afe made in au‘mmistrative exigency cf pubih: intereei excep‘? ihe same is en {he grounci of pmvea‘ ma%af!de exemise of eower or in vimaéion of the statutory or we efficer passing ihe ewe? is in competent ?hus, there is no merii m this ease g9/ /, ashok Accom’iagiy, i‘ne wrii' iseiiiion i3 éismiseed. ‘ Sdk if I Satish K. Agnihciiri i’ i i j i ‘ Judge