•^r- In the High Court ofJudicature at Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Petitioner •^i4-''' •••' ^yy' ^^••"'' i^'Respondents Writ Petition Number-2.4°8/2006 B.R-Satyvanshi ^Aged About-59 Yrs. S/o Shri Ramadhar Satyvanshi Post-BEO, Khairagarh, Address -Shivmandir, Khairagarh, Tehsil- Khairagarh, Distt-Rajnandgaon. VERSUS 1- State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretary D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2- TheDirector Lok Sikshan Sanchnalaya (Director of School Education) Raipur (C.G.) 3- District Education Officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 Constitutions oflndia r ^.s3^^1 200^) -;;;3?I^3I qi; R-fi.tti ss^y %lIWfl1??( 3II^T'FRnW(rf5tI ^rafepftt'tIPTCtf •? fe<a"(fsF5?R ^ STptPT 3!i^T mszow^ Mr. Azad Siddique,counselfortl^e lUlr. Ashutosh Kachchwaha, respondente. Heard bofc the counsel. petitioner. (3ovt. Advocate for the State/ s. By the instant petition, the peti(ioner propriety of the order dated 24-4-2006) from the post of Block Education Secondary School, Mohara, Rajnandga|on. Ofpcer Court !of It is settled law that the transfer cannot be questioned beforethe ma/affcte/y or in violation of ruie of made without anyproper justification. view has beentaken by the Hon'ble Ap s^rvlce petit^oner The only allegatton of the that the petitioner has been transfer|red respondent No.3as he rnade a compl^int settled law that the petitioner is requpred malafide of respondents, butto establi^h mentioning in the petition that the trai|isfer 1 reasons, same cannot be said to be the record shows that vide order dated placed undersuspension on the grounp teachers without prior approval ofthe c{: has questioned validjfy and whereby he has been transferred Khairagarh to Govt. Higher s an incident ofservice and same law unless such order is passed or guidelines or transfer is In the eatena of judgments this Court. . 'ex in para-6.3 of the petition is due to malafide intention of to respondent No.2. It isalso nqt only to raise grounds of the same with material. Merely has been made for malafide ^stablished. Moreover, perusal of |28th March 2006 the petitioner was that he made transfers of certain (>mpetent authority. [^^ ^fo^ XI-HC-22 ^a TWKt^, WS^PTS, F^W.y SII^T'^iT ft:ri??3n^i '^rN? ^f?^ Ban/e an^iWiiWHfer _ Tn view~or~ihe above, I am| petitioner has not been abte to ma| Court under Articte 226/227 of the I do not find any substance! dismissed and it is hereby dismissec| Consequently, M.(W.)P. Nc| also stand disposed of. 'of tfie considered opinion tfwTTRe |ce out a case for interference by this C^nstitution of tndia. in this petition, same is liable to be j.1824/2006 and I.A. No.4801/2006 ^iqferilTi tiTiRri tfe^TfSresre i? aTpgtT 3i]t?i L. judge