IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No. {5^-2-^ 2011. PETITIONER ... / €- Yogesh Kashyap aged 44 years, Son of late Shri Alakhrara Kas'hyap Head Master, Govt. Primaiy ^ Head Master, Govt. Prim; ^L/-^-s:;"l."7'^,Wd}s^-> School, Tumakala, Block p.R. - '^^^^^w"^.. ' ^SA--^"\'^\^-2^lj <L'2- RESPONDANTS ^^ff^^ ' ^ to^c' \ #^f^~^a'f* ^ Dharadha, District Durg C.G., VERSUS 1. The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhsvan, Raipur C.G. District Education Officer, Durg ( C.G.) 3. Block Education, Officer, Dhamdha.Distt. Durg C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST!TUTK)N OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRJATE; WRIT. PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5729 OF 2011 Yogesh Kashyap Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Collector, in accordance with the policy decision dated 13 June, 2011. 2. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, though the same has been passed by the District Education Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two months, thus, the importance of questioning the transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non- competent officer, has been cancelled. If the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. However, if it is still not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner, in all matters is not likely to suffer, if the petitioner has already accepted by joining the new place of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. 4. As a result, if the petitioner has already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15n July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the 1 . competent authority in public interest and in administrative exigency. 5. . Accordingly, tfie writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Satisfa K. Agnihotri Judge