Siwx/ §3§mh ‘ EN TEE HXGH CGURT QF JUEKIATURE AT 31LAS?UR, (LG. WRIT PETITIQN No. 3% Lo mm ir {Peimen andes‘ m" tide. 226i 22’? 3f the Constkution Qf India) z W PETEEQNEE 06. Lam Ram Bengak agal abcmt 57’ yeaw SIG y gy5vx/y ‘ Kaladas Emmi, working as Hm Mam; ‘ .o" Migicllg Selma} Bugmm Maggleda, Rm ’ ’viilage Eiiéhem Digtiict Dhamtaxi (CG) ‘ / .v ‘. Vs ‘ S?GNDENTS : 1) . State. of Chhaiiiggaih thmugh thé Sacmtary, g1 34 (Emmi Aiimimsuaiian depmtment, D.K.S. Enildmg R’aipm; CG. \]\ e 2) Biix'trict Eciucation Dfmer, Dhamtari Dimict Dhamtmi (1G. 1:4-. W Piixxciwi, Middla Schaol Budhem‘, 3 H ”Ax @Q. § Magatleda, Dmmct Dhamim, 4} Pimcipal, Mddie. School Khapii, Dhamtari, Digtiict Dhamtmi (CG) WRIT PETITION UNEER ARTECLE 225/227 OF THE £GZ¥STITUTI§N OF INDIA FCIR ISSUANCE GF APPROPRIATE : WRET3. DREERS AND EERECTGNS ETC. \ RE K Mr. G.K. Beriwal, Deputy Ad ocate Genera! fer the Statelrespondents. Heard both the counsei. By this writ petition under rticie 2261227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has questioned the l gaiity and propriety of orders dated 31-7- 2004 and 30-9-2004, whereby th petitioner has been transferred from the post of Head Master, Primary hool. Budheni, Magariode to Primary ,x School, Khapri, Dhamtari, and aso that the representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of this urt‘s order» has been rejected without assigning reasons. The petitioner was work as Head Master of Primary .Schooi, Budheni from where he was tra sferred by order dated 31-7-2004. The wever on the request of counsei for the petitioner chai!enged the transfer, petitioner, the petitioner was ailow d to make a representation to respondent No.2. However. the same was r jeeted vide order dated 30-9-2004. The case of the petitioner is that the p titioner was transferred without assigning any reason, whereas, out of total trength of 8 teachers, only 3 teachers are , even then the petitioner has been working inciuding the petitione transferred, and nobody has bee posted in piece of the petitioner, thereby the students‘ interest is affected. Reply has been filed on be alf of the state/respondents in which it has been mentioned that the petiti ner been transferred on administrative exigency. During the course of argu ents, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the transfer, e en the petitioner has not been paid the salary, whereas he was working c ntinuousiy as Teacher. Moreover, he has c o i o XI—HC-22 100 311%31 Eh‘r mWW 311%31 3am? 11% mm?m%’ 132? (Paw? mW a?WW ‘ 1 9-4-2005 Mr. Vishnu Koshta, ccunsel r the petitioner. XI~HC-22 Q\ x. WW WW WW mmmm been piaced under suspension. respondents to reinstate the petitio§ with the order. Having heard learned counsJ facts and circumstances of the casr petrtion for the reason that the pet case for intervention by this Court q is the-'settied iaw that transfer is d can ask for any partieuiar posting tenure. Therefore, the writ petit’ accordingly dismissed. herefare, as direction be issued to th 1er and the petitioner is ready to compiy ei for the parties and having regard to the e, i do not tind any substance in this writ iitioner has not been abie to make out a iy i invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction, as it n incidence of service and no employee at a particular piace and for particular n is liable to be dismissed and it is However, if the petitioner oves an application to respondent No.2 that he isready to join at the ne place of posting, then respondent No2 shall consider the case of the petiti ner sympathetically for his reinstatement, and also if any back wages are ot paid to the petitioner for which he is legally entitled, then that can also b Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.No.i disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifre considered by respondent No.2. $32212004 and l.A.No.2136/2005 stand e