IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (cm h WRIT PETHION ( s ) No. 5b cW OF 2009 ‘k PETITIONER : (”Krishna Lal Banpefa 5/0. Hirde Ram Banpela, aged abou‘r 51 yéars, p Occupafion- Service, Posted as Head lf?’ ’"igibw Masfer at, Middle School, Kariha, 4/??jaggm Vikash Khand Chaf'ama, Disff: ..... Basfer “o”. gx" ....... Kunker (Cm w m RESPONDENTS : . v?“ 1. The Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh, Through the Secrefar‘y Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhowon Raipur (CG) 2. Whssiotont Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Kanker, Distt.— North Easter Kanker (C.G.) 3. fwCollector Kanker, Distt.— North Baster ,Kanker ( c5.) ' 4. (X Block Education Officer, Charama, . a”, Distt.— North Baster Kanker ( CG.) 5. Shri Ram , Vishal Pal l-lead Master, 94k I ,. Posted at Middle School Badetumnar, Vikash Khand - Geedom, @ TICLES 226 OF THE C NSTITUTION EANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. WRIT PETIHON UNDER AR OF INDIA FOR ISSU @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (8} No; 5544 of 2009 Petitioner Kn'shna Lal Banpela Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB; Hon’me 31m Satish K. Agm'hom' J.) Shri Nitesh Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDERpral) X“ (Passed on this 25m day of September, 2009) Heard. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is posted as Head Master in Middle School, Kariha, Block — Charama, District North Baster, Kanker. On 30.6.2009 two transfer orders were issued i.e. one (Annexure P/ 1) by the State Government and the second order (Annexure P/2) was issued by the Collector. In both the transfer orders the place of posting to the petitioner is different. The petitioner is at loss asto where he should go and join. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an old person therefore both the transfer orders may be cancelled. Except the above, no other ground is raised by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State submits that there seems to be confiision in two orders. The State will take immediate steps to clarify the confusion and pass one order with regard to the posting of the petitioner. 4. In View of the above statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State, it'is expected that the State will take appropriate steps and to pass one order in regard to the posting of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be not relieved till an order, giving specinc place of posting, is passed by the State.<No order asto costs. ‘ Satish K. Agn‘ihmri Thakur ' ‘ ”Judge w i 1 y. _Sd/. i