IE THE HIGH C OURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BILAS FUR (C .G .) mm PETIrmN No. z? 3V . /2oo3 1 PETEItCNER KQ‘E’nal %a$ad Patel, nu aged about 48 years, S/O Snri Shiv Dayal Patel AssiStant Veterinary Field Officer ¢ .D. Artificial InSemina’tian WREMPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONé‘I‘ IL‘UTION OF IDEIA “m 3‘ sw\-‘Q'O%:"\?22-' V; "‘ sub£entre, Village Kalmi 9.“ V‘egw‘é...» ‘ db‘k9gf . Block & D15 t. Raigazh (C .G.) d6‘e VERSUS g§SPwoENrs z Etate of Chhattisgarh Through = Secretagry Ministry Agxicultral Vaterinary D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 145 Deputy Diremsor Vetenisry Servjges, Raigarb(C.G.) R.K. Arum. Asaist’ant Veteniary Filed Officer 'Veteniary DispenSery, village Chimtapani, Block _ Gharghoda, Distt.Raiga;ch(c.G.)‘ Writ Petitiorl No. 2734 of 2003 Petitioner“. Koshal Prasad Pattl VerSus Respondents: State 0f Chhattisgarh 8a others Single Bench: Hog’bLe Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Y. C. Shanna, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and. 2. Shri H. S. Patel, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER ( 8m F6brua1y, 2006) Tht following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The. petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Veterinaxy Field Onicer in Artificial Insemination Sub—Center, Kah‘ni, Block and Distlict- Raigarh, where he was transferred and posted vide cider dated 7.8.2003 (Annexure. P/3) nom Veten'nary Hospital, Afreed, Block — Bamnideeh, District— Janjgir Champa. Subsequently by order dated 21.8.2003 (Annexme P/ l) the earlier order dated 7.8.2003 was cancelled. This petition impugns the. order dated 21.8.2003. This Court by inten'm order dated 29.10.2003 stayed the 0[ impugned order and allowed the petitioner to continue on the same place of posting at Raigarh. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of this go. court’s order dated 29.10.2003, the petitioner has continued on the same old place of posting and the impugned order was never 1 given effect to in respect of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner / has got the fmal rslisf by interim order. The petitioner gould not cantinue at one. place forever, At This stage: there is no question to go into the. validity of the. impugned order. . This petition has become infractuous with the passage of time. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as having become infxuctuous. However, respondents/aufhoxities are at liberty to pass amiropn‘ate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administtative exigency, in accordance with law, It is expected mat the respondents/authorities will not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 21,8‘2003. No order as to costs. /¥ i Sd/n ‘ Judge r. Thakur §&' \ Satish K. Agnihotri