^f\^ro ^ Singte IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0 ^[ot1 /2011 PETITIONER t.1.- ^y Y^-" A^'1':^: ^•^•^ ^••••^y ..-•"".^"^"" :»* ,^-: ^ 7...-<v.r- RESPONDENTS Parmeshwar Kurre S/o Shri Vishram ^ Prasad Kurre, aged about 43 years, Working as Headmaster Posted at Government Primary School Khudubhatha, Block Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Ghhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) ' The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4) The Block Education Officer, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NAT^URE ETC. G^- SM^ r ••;^ ••"' ^ •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4104 OF 2011 PETITIONER Parmeshwar Kurre RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri U.R. Koshley, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Muri:hy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary Schoot, Khudubhatha (Sarangarh) to Government Primary School, Navapali, Baramkela, District Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel appea,ring for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in connection with the election work i.e. preparation, revision and correction of the electrol rolls, as is evident from the order passed in the month ofApril 201 1 (Annexure ~ P/3). Thus, under the provisions of Section 13CC of the Representation ofthe People Act, 1950 the petitioner is deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission. Even the control, superintendence and discipline is also with the Election Commission. Therefore, in view of the said provision, the State Government is not competent to transfer an employee who is engaged in connection wlth the election work, as aforestated, during the said period. ..^ j. /' Gowri 4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that in view of the clear statutory prohibition, the impugned order can be quashed, however, the same should be subject to verification offacts. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1), in respect of the petitioner, is quashed, subject to verification offacts. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. — Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge