G^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR w.p. rs) No. <il ^St e o!l- y £. S,; /2011 PETITIONER ^..^^, ^...•-^ ^-y ^ ...-•^ -•' ^ l') Y^^ \v \ SESPONDENTS Kamal Narayan Chandrakar, Aged 49 Yrs. S/o Late Chaifa'am Ji Chandrakar R/o 1-5, Gitru Teg Bahadur Nagar, New Puraina, Raipur VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ^: 2) Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Raipur PETmON U/ART. 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR HON'BLE SHR! PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, of2011 Kamal Narayan Chandrakai RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Appearance: Shri Raja Sharrna, counsei for petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Dy. Advocate General with Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1 as a!so for respondent No.2. (31/01/2011) Foliowing oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Heard. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 07/11/2009 passed by the responden? No. 2 transferring him from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, iaipur to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kawardha. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his wife is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III in a nearby School at Chhatauna (Mandir Hasaud) and even then,¥ise the fact that the petitioner has not been relieved even after more than a year, goes to demonstrate that there is no admlnistratlve exigency for transfemng him to Kawardha. therefore it is a fit case for interference. (2) Learned counsel for the respondent woutd argue that the impugned order does not call for any interference as it is passed on adminisSrative exigency. (3) AfSer hearing learned counse! for the parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation which he has fited along with }ther Sransferred employees vida Annexure P/3 at page No. 11 to 14. Since 'ft, is for the authority t6 decide the question of continued existence e^sss- •%.. 'taae^ r1"""^ 1- -2. of administrative exigency as also the persons petitioner and his family, the respondent-; representation within a period of six weeks from th certified copy of this order. >lem concerning the sha!t decide the date of productiQn of (4) In view of the submission that the respondent No.2 has allowe petitioner to continue him at the previous place of posting for more year after passing of the transfer order, it is directed that the peti' shall continue at the present place of posting during pendency representation. itioner of his (5) The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. ¥tasb iudSe ?£^^ffa