i.!^"'^^ .. ^o^'"...--" 'v^\..--""' A®&"' s^gfQ Bench €, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT£ETITLQN(SJ N0.^0 &t1/2011 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTJTUTION OF INDIA ; BETWEEN PETITIONER Balram Prasad Shukla, son of Shri Bhagwatdin Shukla, aged about 54 years, Presently posted at Rrimary School Kooli, Cluster Khamariya, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Bilaspur, Collectorate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ^ 3. District Education Officer, Education District Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Lakhan Singh' Jagat, son of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Head Master, Government Primary School, Bhatapara, Khamariya, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITJ0N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS ^ '<^; 'K. J1 ^^: .\ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HtGH COURT OF CHHATTtSQARH : BILASPUR WRiT PETiTiON (S) N0. 4064 OF 2011 Bairam Prasad Shukla Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others flfl/rit Petition under Article 226 of the Constttutien of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble.Shri Satish K. AgnihoSri, J. Present:- Shri AmrifoDas, Asivocatefor the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the Stete. ORDERfQRAU , (Passed on this 27fflaay Of July, 2011) 1. Leamed counsei appearing for the p^itioner submits that the petitioner on promotjon tp the post of Headmaster Primaiy Schooi was working in Primary School Kooii, Block Masturi, District Biiaspur. 2. By the order dated 19.08.2008 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Teacher to the Primary School Parsiya, Block Pathariya, District Biiaspur. Thus, the order deservas to be canceied on the above-stated groynd. 3. Be that as it may, it is we!l settted prfnciple of iaw that fransfer is within the administratiye jurtsdiction to place a person at a pariicular piace, unless the same is hit by maiafide, iack of competence or vioiation of statutory rutes and regutations. 4. In view of the above, the State/respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order forthwith. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the afore-stated observatlon. g^y. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok