«SI-Kigsg gum} M M‘ @§> PETITIONER wuA A Am A CHHATTISGARH : ’ Umend Singh Thakur Aged about 48 years S/o. Shri Kashi Nath Thakur Occupation—Block Education Officer Dondi R/o. Villagc Dondi, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Tribal Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raipur (C.G.) The Collector Tribal Development Branch DistrictDurg (C.G.) f S.S. Mandavi My S/o.‘ not known /" Area Organizer Tribal Department Rajnandgaon (C.G.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR w.P. No. 47%} /2oo4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A / m aitn'a; W mam (WW) ) /0. mgog ma my 13am aan strawWm ‘ mmwma $mmm#%@xm $W siT=¥$§ 12.Q7.2995 Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advoca‘ cwunsei for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, ream . Chhattisgarh I respondents 1 to 3, Mr. Parag Kotecha, leamed wounsel for respondent No.4. ed under Article 226 of the Constitution of» india impugnes the order dated 09.11.2004 >(Annexure P—4) whereby the e rlier order dated 25.09.2004 (Annexure P-l) has been cancelie Learned counsel for the p titioner submits .that the order is not a transfer order and 09.11.2004 {Annexure P-4) canceiiing the earlier order dated 2 .092004 (Annexure P4) on the greund that there was violation 0 transfer policy 2004-05 is not cerrect and legal. Learned counsel appearing or respondents 1 to 3 submits that the tranefer policy 2004-05 da d 07.07.2004 (Annexure Ril -1‘ previdee that nd transfer can be fade except in following cases, with the eermission of the concerned Minister: l1) Fer posting on return fro deputation, whereby the said order any ether persen is ct effected; r x i and Mr. CR. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State of This petition has been dated 25.09.2004 {Annexure P- therefore, subsequent order da x _L i 3/2005 » 20,000 l t 1 \ d ..w:f:..iw.§z.z ”m W astrias @290 snwW (Wm) ndation from Chief Secretary servant from State of ‘awmam manméaias mmmanéa _ 9.P mmm'§1‘3®m'w $W‘aaé2! . A! (2) For sending a gevemmemt‘xe’g'lployee of a department to different department on deputation or deployment and where both the deparments agreed for the same (however, for Class-I rcers the ordér of the Chief Minister on a recomm would be necessary); (3) in the case of posting on allocation of agovemment dhya Pradesh to State of Chhattisgarh, if some ct er employee is not effected by the same posting; (4) . For the posting on the v cant post of eligible-candidates appointed by selecti n through' Public Service Commission; {5) Transfer order made compiiance of directions / judgments from Courts: (6), Transfer made on reque t (on own cost) if by the said order no standing instruct ns are violated; (7) Transfer of Ciass-N emp ees. i y in the present case, there as no necessity of transferring the petitioner as per prescribed c tions. The transfer order was made without approval of the conc rned Minister also. Hence the transfer order was bad and illegai. Learned counsel appearing or the respondents adapts the t contentions of the counset appearin for the respondents 1 to 3. i . t i ‘ i l r ‘x SP/FS/2OOS - 20,000 ' i a i o i W $qf$ ................. , ................ V. . W g§§ 31mm?m Hanmamm? mm WE?! ma 3mmW (wm). mma Hmw' %’w 2W§R $ w’=%q m21 :ions of all the parties and having case including transfer policy, it is l 25.09.2004 (Annexure P-1) was :olicy 2004-05 dated 07.07.2004. :ribed for transfer was in existence med Minister was also obtained before the order dated 25.09.20ii4 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner as Ira-charge, Block § SP/FS/2005 “ 20,000 Having heard the content gone through the papers of the found that transfer order dated passed in violation of transfer 1 Admittedly no cbndition as bresr and no approval of the Gonce Education Officer, Tribal Welfare Block. Dondi, District Durg, was passed. Under the facts and circu is dismissed. ' No order as to costs. ‘ mstanees of the case, the petition // Sdl— Judge Sau’sh Kn wom imp”m.,mm._w-m__.m_.,