c -P . ^oo / IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.\ WRITPETTnON (5lNa^03^_OF2QH PETITCONER ^r5mt. C)utari Chandrakar W/o. Late Shri Santram Chandrakar, aged about 47 years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Head Master at Primary ^ ^••?",«.5choolUtai, Vikash Khand Durg, bistt.- r^ \\^ r^\'M..\^^" Our9(C.6.) ^^^ ^A RESPONDENTS : ^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary bepartment of School Education Mantralaya DXS. Building Raipur(C.&.) 2. The Collector Dupg, Distt.- Durg 3. TheDistrict EducationOfficer. Durg , Distt.- Durg (C. 6.) 4. Block Education Officer. Vikash Khand Durg, Disn.- Durg ( C.&.) WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TOR tSSUEANCE OF APPR(^miATE WRIT. HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (S) No. 6076 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Duiari Chandrakar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of indsa) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Snri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 13tn day of October, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), vvhereby, the petiticner. working as Headmaster at PriiTsary School Utai, Block Durg, has been transterred to Primay Schoo! Borid, Block Patan, on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority l.e. the Coliector, in accordance with the poilcy declsion dated 13 June, 2011. 2, 11 appears that the transfer order has been approved by the CoSiector, though the same has been passed by the District Education Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two and half months, thus, the importance o? qu^tioning the transfer order does not sumve, as It appears that the transfer has been challenged on account 6f the fact that in some cases, the transfer Issoed by nopa-competent officer, has been cancelSed. if the transfer order has been compiied v^ith, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. Hov^ever, Jf 11 is stiii not complied with, the sanne shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an inddence of service and the petltioner, in aii matters Js not iikeiyto suffer, Ifthe petjtioner has aiready accepted byjoining the nevv' piace of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examlne the iegality and validifr^ ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. As a result, if the petitioner has a!ready not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofthe petitioner, shall not be given effect to, yntil a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and in administrative exigency. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. ashcR Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge