811 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (S) N0. ^QS^ /2011 .^w^. ^>x^ ^^ ^c^ '^-'""%-^ ^ RESPONDENTS ^^^. R.K. Verma, S/o J.L. Verma, aged about 50 years, R/o Panchshil, 'A' Sector Borsi near Sai Manglam, Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) post as Assistant Grade-II at Govt. High SchoQl Aheri (Dhamdha) Distt.- Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary School Edupation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Public Education, Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3< The Collector. Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) District Education Officer, Durg, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) /" 5. Block Education Officer, Dhamdha, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Oji' INDIA PETiTigNER HIGH COURTOF CHHATT3SGARH : BILASPUR WRST PETiTiON (S) No. 6058 OF 2011 R.K.Verma RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (VVrit Petition under Artide 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^-..^ ashok Present:- Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passsd on this 13tn day of October, 2011) 1. The petitjoner Impugns the order dated 15th Juiy, 2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner, working as Assistant Grade-ll at Govt. High School Aheri (D^amdha), has been transferred to Govt. High School, Parsada Dangniya (Gunderdehi), on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e, the Coilector, in accordance with the policy decision dafed 13 June,2011. 2. !t appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Minlster inw charge, though the same has been passed by the District Education Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more thari two and half months, thus, the importance of questioning the transfer order does not sumve, as it appears that the transfer has been chailenged cn account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non-competent officer, has been canceiied. if the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the vaiidlty of the same. However, If it is still not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an inddence of semce and the petitioner, in all matters js not likeiyto suffer, Ifthe petitloner has already accepted byjoining the new piace of posting. Thus, at thls stage, it is not proper to examine the legaSity and vaiidity ofthe impugned transfer order. 4, As a result, if the petitioner has already not been reiieved, tne transfer order dated 15th July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofthe petitioner, shall not'be given effect to, until a fresh'order is passed by the competent authority in pubiic interest and in administrative exigency. 5. Accordingjy, the writ petjtlon disposed of. No order asto costs. sd/- .. _ SatishK.A^OW Judge