^ p-1^ i €^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fS) NO.U(^-% /2011 PETmONER Ram Ratan Ratre, aged about 53 years, son of late shri Sonku Ratre, presently working as "Upper Division Teacher" at Govt. Middle School- Malda (A), Block-Sarangarh, Drstrfct- Raigarh (C.G.) and permanent resident of Village- Bhathagaon, Block- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ 1. s^l^ ,^^^' ^^^ ^ The Stateof Chhattfsgarh, Through: its Secretary, Department of General ^/A Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^^^'^ ^y^ ^-<"^ y' |M. ^ ^I<t ^. '^7Sl ^u^/ ^ "*" ,. / 2. The Principal Secretary, Department ^1\ of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^3. The Collector, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ..•"' ,4. The District Education Officer, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^5. The Block Education Offlcer, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^&. Asha Ram Jangde, aged about- 48 years, son of shri Santram Jangde "Upper Divisron Teacher" presently posted at Govt. Middle School- Madhopali, Block and Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRD^TE WRIT OR DIRECTION ETC: fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETn'ION (S) No. 4178 of2011 PE'miONER : RamRatanRatre. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRII' pETrnoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITlinON OF DMDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 01st day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby, th©petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Malda, Sarangarh, has becn transferred to Middle School, Semipali, Db^ramjaigarh, showing it to be on his own request. The petitioner further challenges the relieving order dated 20.07.2011 (Aimexure P/2) issued pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no application on the part of the petitioner to transfer the petitioner j&om one place to another place. Thus, the impugned order to transfer the petitioner on the ground ofbeing on his own request, is bad in law and does not come within the purview ofadmmistrative exigency. 3. Shri Sao, ^ learned Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5 subinits that indisputably, there is no application on record, making a request for his transfer, tiius the impugned transfer on his own request was not proper and the petitioner was entitled to administrative expenses. 4. In view of the foregoing, the transfer order 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) and 20.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) are vitiated being contrary to the well settled principles of law and are accordmgly quashed in respect of the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the competent authority to pass a frcsh order in administrative exigency and public interest ifnecessary. 5. Accordingly, fhe writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- i SatishK.Agnihotri Judge