PETITIONER $ingle Eengh ‘ URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP (S) No)13)% /2011 / . Dasharath Prasad Sahu, aged about 32 years, slo :Shri Paras Ram Sahu, r/o Village- BachanNar Tahasil Pendra Dist— Bilaspur (C.G;)‘ Presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade 3 at Primary School Nawapara ‘(Bachawar), Block— Pendra, Dist— Bilaspur Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh — Through— The Secretary, Department _ of Panchayat and Rural Development D!<S ‘Bhawan 'Raipur Chhattisgarh Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bilaspur, District— Biiaspur Chhattisgarh Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District— Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Block Education Officer, Block Pendra Dist; Bilaspur C.G.' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As per cause title PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As per cause title INTHE HIGH co RESPONDENTS ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l WRIT PETIT!ON (S) No.3236 OF 2010, decided an 05.0S.2011 Z . WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4318 of2011 PETITIONER : ‘Dashrath Prasad Saim. VERSUS ) RESPONDENTS : , The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' r SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K, Aggg‘llom', J. Present: Shri 'Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. (p Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and 4. ‘ ORDER (ORAL! (Passed or: 05 ‘ day ofAugust, 201 l) 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto whether an employee of one Janpad Panchayat can be transfen‘ed to another Janpad Panchayat, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om Prakasi'z v. State of Chhaz'lz’sgarh & Others! . Thus, the instant petition may also be disposed ofin the same terms. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the above submission and submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same tenns. 3. In View of the submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in terms ofthe order passed in Om Prakash (supraj i.e. the impugned order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure 13/1) in respect ofthe petitioner, is quashedy.‘ ‘ Sd/— ‘ ft i Satish K. Agnihotri . é‘ i Judge Amit V V 7 E