a^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. ^30'^ /2009 PETITIONER ^..&^ -..-*-V' P/!?.':""" ^•••^y^ ^...5i^^"""" ^^^ ^^- RESPONDENTS :1) Harishchand Gabel, son of Shri Awadh Ram Gabel, aged about 57 years, occupation Head Master Pre- Middle School Thakurdiya, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) R/o. Village Kota, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh ^ Through Secretary Tribal^^et^ducatioiia' Department, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch), Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, District Raigarh(C.G.) Block Education Officer, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) :2) 3) 4) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (8) No. 5302 of2009 PETITIONER Harishchand Gabel. VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Othei-s. RESPONDENTS : ^VRTTPETmQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITLTION OF - INDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm Satish K, Agniliotn, J. Present: Slm Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Ajit Siiigli, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 30th day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner, in compliance ofthe transfer order dated 30.06.2009 (.Aiiiiexure P/2), has joined at Middle School, Thakurdia, Development Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh, but the second transfer order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/l) was not complisd. This Court, vide order dated 06.10.2009, directed to maintam status quo, thus, the petitioner has continued at Thakurdia, fbr ainiost 1 1/2 years. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exlgency. 8M Singli fiirfher submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance ofthe impugiied order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/l). 2. At this stage, when no effect could be given to the impugtied order dated 30,06.2009 (^mexure P/l) on account ofthe mteiim order dated 06.10.2009, it is not necessary to go into legality and validity ofthe impugned order dated 30.06.2009 (Aimexure P/l). 3. In view ofthe above, accordmg to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, notliing sun^ives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AlTUt