BEFORE HON' BLE HIG H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.^l02-/2011 PETITIONER Johanlal Verma S/o Shri Hiralal Verma, aged about 47years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Pre- Middle ty^<s^ ..•• ii,(7 >'*rtC^..y' ...••''. School, Pitepani,Dongargarh, District k .^ -'^0.'^ .*'*'-.. .\ \ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^>y^v> J^'^^ ^'"W' ..-'V ~c-r-'/ VERSUS 'RESPONDENTS : 1.<< State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ 3. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA. The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under;- 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS As mentioned in fhe cause title. 3. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE ORDER AGA^STWHICHTHE PETITION IS BEING MADE ^ r^ ~;\ j^ <^ ^y iJGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRITEETIIiON rs) No. 5102 QF 2Q1 1 s-Str T'lTi rs..^. s£::E2 iUi^^-?^ johanlai Verma versus RESPONDENTS Staie of Chhattisaarh & C'thers (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of in( Smgle Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent:. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. S'nri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lavvyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 02" day of -Septembsr, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2). it is ciearly stated that the CoSlector alone is cornpeient to transfer the empiovees beionging to Ciass-iii & ?v' ser^ices on proposai made by the other deDartrnents in uDprovai of the mlnistsr in-charge. 2. !n the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer without following the guideiines issuad in the transfer policy had oassed the order imDugnsd, when the Collector 'nas been assigned the responsibi'iity of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned disirict. on 'oroDosai of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffei's from the defect of cornpetence of the officer. Accordingiy, the transfsr is unsustainabie in the eves of law. 3. , As a resuit. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexurs P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so acSvised, in accordsrice with administrative exigency and in pubiic poiicy, In accord^fsce wlth isw. 4. Accordirigiy, the writ petition is aiiowed to the above-extent. No order SSIO COSs.S. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge