(5? \tWZ/f IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. w.P, (S) No. MS 3‘5 201 1 /. ...... Harakh Ram Yadava aged 53 years Son of Shri Bishambher Singh Yadava, Pradhan Pathak,(Saikchhanik Samwayak (Mohadipat), Primary School, Bamhani, Block Gunderdehi, District Durg C.G. $ingm much PETITIONERS . . . CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. C VERSUS RESPONDANTS 1. The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, . School Education Department, C.G. \AQ/VvA w , D.K.S., Bhavan, Raipur / 2. The District Education Officer, .........\\ Durg C.G. D—ifH c 3‘96. ...................... a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE : ¥GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : EQLASPUR WRW PETmGN (S) NO. 4535 OF 2011 Vemus RESPQNDENTS The State Govt. of Chhattisoarh & Another (Writ Petition under Aiticle 226 of the Constitution of india) $ingle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao. Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 17m day of October, 201 1) Chaiienge $1 this petition i3 to the order dated 15‘“ July, 2011 (Annexure P4; whereby the petitioner, working as Headmaster at Primarv School Bamhani. Gunderdehi, has been transferred to Primary $choo! Ruha‘ Dhamdna. on administrative grounds. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer poiicy dated 13th June. ZQH (Annexure P-2)r it is cieariy stated that the Coiiector atone is competent to transfer the empioyees beionging to Ciase-iil & iV services on proposal made by the other departments in aoprovei ofthe minister in—c'narge. in the case on hand it appears that the District Education Officer, Durg, without foiiowing the guideiines issued in the transfer poiicy had passed the order impugned, when the Coiiector has been assigned the responsibiiity of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus. this suffers from the detect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a resuit, the transfer order dated 15*“ July, 201.1 (Annexure P-t) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, iiberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order. if so advised, in accordance with iaw and in administrative exigency or public interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is aliowed to the above-extent. No order asto costs. SdA Satish K. AgnihOtri’ Judge ashck PETlTiGNER Parakh Ram Yadava