W £5 $’1ég‘ " rit Fetitién g3) 1. 37ot2a PETETIQNER : Girdhari Lal Chandrawamhi S143 Shri Raram Singh Tehsil Chandrawanshi, Kurud, District Aged Dhamtari about 43 (CG). ysars, R/o Villagc Mohara, VERSUS WW RESPGNDENTS 1.... of State Chhattisgarh, of Chhattisgarh, Dcpartmcni Through of the Secretary, Govenunem Schedule Casm Development, DK Scheduled Tribc and Raipur (CG). _S Bhawan, Mantraiaya, The School The Secretaly? {30113111iseioaer/Direetor, Educan'on, Govennnent DES Bhawarg of Cbhattiegarh, Mantraiaya, Depamnent Raipur (CG). of Campus, Tribe and Raipur, Scheduied CG. Caste Department Deveiopment, of Pt, Scheduled R.'S.U. and Seheduled Caste Deveiopment, '01; Depaltment Raipur, 01" Scheduied CG. Trihe The Additionai Direci w m: 5. Biock Education Officer, Mainpur, District Raipur, CG( Officer, Mampur, Districi Raipur, CG. 6. Bhanuram Ratre, Assistant Teacher, Clo Bloek Education ORAL ORDER (Fasseai oii 11m of Fehmij’, 2638) 1. Leamed counsei appearing fer the petitioaer submits that the petitionen workiiig as Assistant Teacher at Gcveamlent Bays/Gide Ashram Schooi, Bade Going; Black Mainpur; Distriot Raipur (CG): has never made any application for mutual transfer with respondent No. 6. The petitioner, vide order dated 19.07.2007 (Annexare P/l) was transferred in place of Shri acher, Prhnary School Jadjada, Black Gariyaband. District Raipur (respo Bhamlram Ratre, Assistant Te nelent N0. 6). Shd Bhahuram Ratre was transferred in place ofthe petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition challenging the savri transfer order in this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5837/07 (Girdhari Lal Chandrawanshi Vs. @ Stats of Chhattisgarh and others). This Court, attet having heard learned counsel at length, disposed ofthe petition, permitting tho petitioner to make a representation before the authority concemed. On representation having been made by the petitioner, the Director, Schedule Tribe and Scheduled Caste Welfare Depmtment passed a reasoned order on 14.11.2007 (Amiexure P/6) wherein, it was clearly found that the statemem of the petitioner was not correct as an application was filed for mutual transfer with respondent No. 6’ by the petitioner. . learned counsel for the petitioner has again filed this writ petition for the same relief which cannot be considered by this Court. The authority concerned have considered the representation of the petitioner with regard to disputed facts and have came to the conclusion that the mutual transfer order is passed at the instance of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6. Thus, there is no reason to dis-believe the authority and interfere in this matter. Even otherwise, transfer is in administrative exigency and in public interest. Transfer can be made by the employer/State in View of foregoing. . The petitioner has not raised the permissible younds i.e. proved malafide, non competence of the omcer passing the order and violation of any rules and regulations. . In view of foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdf- Sahu Satish K. Agnihotri Judge v z