:^:. t^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {Sl N0 M<lfc& OF 2011 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS 1 .^ J^^ ,^%v" C.R. Markandey S/o late Kartikram Markandey, aged aboyt^ occupation service, present^ Superintendenf, priniary Scheduled Csiste Buys^^ ^ Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan,: Riaipur (ChKattisgarh^ ' ^ ^ 2. Directorate Publlc Instructions, through Director, Pension Bada, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). j 3. Assistant CoinmissiQner, Triba^^^^W^^ Collectorate, District Dyrg (C.G.).; ^ 4. Headmaster^^^ Bl6ckDc»ngi,E)isfnctDurgfC.<S.). WRITPETITIONUNI3ERARTICLE21260FTHE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA Q^ HIGHCQURTgFCHHA'rnSGARHATBILASPUR PETmQNER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4886 of2011 C.R.Maikandey. RESPONDENTS • VERSUS State ofChhattissarh & Otliei-s. .'•- !' j WRIT PETn'ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUnON OF JNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 25U1 day ofAiigust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioner working as Hostel Superintendent (Upper Division Teacher) at Pre Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Mivvara, has been transferred to Middle School Soordongar, on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioiier submits that under the transferpolicydated 13.06.2011, it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to class III and IV sei-yices on proposal made by the departments in approval oftheminister-m-charge. 3. In the case on hand, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, has passed the impugned order, when the Collector has bccn assigned th©responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. As a result the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Aimexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass appropriate order, ifso advised, in accordance with law, in administrative exigcncy and in public interest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Aimt ^^ AVlOltl