£^(W^ M /^ ^/ ^i^ ^•<^o^ • ^ ••. y Resoondentfsl ^ - • -: . INTHEHIGHCOURTQFGI-IHA'RrlSGARH.AT-BILASPUR Writ Petitibn YS1 N0. ^ 3^^ of 2008 Petitioner fsl' : / Purshottam Lal Porte, Aged-43years,. - ; , S/o Shri Dtian Singh Porte Worki ng as- Assistant Gra m Panch ayat Officer, at—Gram Panctiayat, Kartufola, Ja n pad Pancl'Tayaf,' DQU n£lilohara, .DJsti-ict-MFgCC.G.) ' •- . . R/0 Kartutola, DisEricf - Durg :(C. G.) VE RSUS : ^l. StateofGhhattisgarh, Thr@i.igh;-^The:;SeGFetaryf,'^ ;•,:©e|3gFtm®|B.©^: ^|El]^y^^KaF]-ds|gi|K2}a!ii^?; •'VVelj&Ee,;M|i i^:||^,:?E).:'re;|S.:B'!'i^|<ai-i,. ;Ra[p; ;'!..';.':. ,' ^ 2. TheDirector, DepaFtmentof Pancha'yat^nd Spaal, WelFare, Chhatti^garh, : ; i ' H. Q.- Raipyr. , i • ' 3.. :.'.The!'Depyty:;Director, : : :'. ::.:.: .Panchayat^&SQcialWelfare, Durg; iDistrict-au^ CGl'iG.) :''1 :'..'.;!?;.. <4. ..•TSTe^Chi^ef: Exeei.iitiVeiOl^er,^ DastFief P;ariGhayat,|.Durg (G;;:G.), Wi-it.Petiiti^i-i^l-idei-i^iiMttll-N'iaziW^aylbfitKe efii-iSiiiuIiJSJ-iKoliinlclia 1. Rarticulai-sOfthie 'H] PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritjnker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4387 of2008 Purshottam Lal Porte. VERSUS State of cyiattisgarh and others. Shri R.K. Kesharwani counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (08.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 wfiereby the petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat, Kartu Tola, Janpad Panchayat Dbndi Lohara District Durg to Jila Panchayat Kanker, District Kanker, in violation of the transfer policy, This petition was filed on 2.8.2008 and the stay was granted in favourof the petitionervide orderdated 11.8.2008. Contention of the counsel for the parties is that this Court may quash the impugned transfer order by giving liberty to the respondents to passfreshorderifadministrativeexigencysowarrants, In view ofthe submisslons ofthe counsel for the respective parties and looking to the fact that the petitionwas fited on 2.8.2008 andstay was granted in favour ofthe petitioner vide order dated 11.8.2008,the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 so far as it relates to thepetltioner lis hereby quashed. However, the respondents shatl be free to pass the order afresh ifadministrativeexigencyneeessitatesthe same. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposedof.^ Sdl- Pritinker Dwaker ; Judge