HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition (S) No. 5414 of 2007 P.L. Patel, Age about 58 years, Head Master, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Patel, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Sidesar, Distt. Kanker (CG). VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh through: The Secretary, Education and Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Kanker, District Kanker (CG). 3. Sangram Singh Thakur, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Umradha, l^arharpur, Distt. Kanker (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) rSBLJIon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02nd day ofMay, 1. The petitioner, by order dated 22.07.2007 (Annexure P/l) was transferred from Govt. High School, Sidesar, Kanker to Govt. High School Gudabeda, Block Koyalibeda, on administrative ground. The respondent No. 3 was transferred to Govt. High School Sidesar, Kanker i.e. in place ofthe petitioner. 2. This Court, after hearing leamed counsel appearing for the parties, stayed the impugned order dated 22.07.2007 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner's transfer resultantly the transfer of the respondent No. 3 was also stayed. Since the petitioner has already "~r.'y~!SS!sy' ^ served for about 10 months on the old place ofposting, at this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits ofthe case as it is well settled that in transfer matters, ultimately the authority is State Govt./employer to transfer an employee at a particular place in public interest as well as in administrative exigency. 3. In view ofthe facts situation ofthe case, leamed Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State Govemment submits that compliance ofthe impugned order dated 22.07.2007 in respect ofthe petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 would not be insisted upon. The State govemment be granted liberty to pass fresh order, if necessary. It is accordingly open to the respondents/State to pass appropriate order posting the petitioner and respondent No. 3 at appropriate places in public interest. 4. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. 5. Interim reliefgranted earlier, stands discharged. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu K