^ r- y6] BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner / ^i- ^sW > '/./^y -<>'- .t^ <^;'Jy- '?'• .s' ^' Respondents W.P. (Sl No. 3T-^^ 1 2009 .^.-1-^ Prabhaker NSgdeve, S/o Shri L. R. Nagdeve, Aged about 54 years, Presently posted as SDO (Forest), Keshkal, North Kondangaon Forest Division (Wrongly mentioned as Kanker Forest Division in impugned order), R/o Forest Colony, Keshkal, District North Bastar (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Sudarshan Chandravanshi, Dy. M.D., District Union, Kanker Forest Division, Kanker(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ y —78 "^s^ ^ ;fe\^'v \'\ c. ^sf "Lii<<i<n<<, enly'is, fs|iniyy,< ..l^(:..e....Gs.)i.3^s:z. 31!^iqnfe;fR7 •;isirsn%gnw <(ii<ik'i4i-'.w!?if' ^; f'BLS S.hri. Manindra Shriv^ Shakeel, counsel for fhe Shri Arvind Dubey, p.| Shri Anand Shnkla. d No.2. ChaUenge ia fhe prej 30.6.2009 (Annexiire P/1)| whereby the petitioner who of Forest has been tt-ansfel Nortli KoE.daga.on, Distt. Jd School, Jagdalpur within a stava. Sr. Advocate with Shri Kasi: oetluoner. L. for resuoadent ^7o. 1. bimsel for tb.e Caveator/respondent ient petition is to the order dated passed by flie respondent No.1 is workiiig as Assistant Conserv-ator rred from. KesKkal Forest Droision, ^dalpur to Director Forest Traitiing |hort spaa of one year. Conteatiou of counsell of frequent transfer aild is1 ^ poUcy as weU as fhe settled| permitted to withdraw tlie ]| representation to respondei] the representauon is decide| frora. his present place ofpoj Leam.ed counsel for petitioner niakes a represei| the coinpeten.t auth.ority. for tiie pentioner is ttiat it is a ca.se ia clear yiolation of the Goveranient norm.s. He subinits fha.t he ruay be ]jiresent petition with a liberty to file it No. 1. He farther sutoniits that tffl |1, ttie petitioner iiiay not 'be relieved ^ting, ifnot ah'eady reUeved. |the Stats has no obiection if the (.tation and fhe saiue is decided by '•»".' t •S-HC—IS *<t*1^!l ShHKft ^^ "ui^i<a<i, ^•y'l®,f°i<iw^< ..y^.£xs.i^s3, an^i TPR? (4°iI'i«(<T) an^i^^iw 'tfSH ^IT^ Sft*li=h WIW^fpI 311^1 <t)|<4^1tl'T *l)H^ft ^f Tsl^i <?^^.R ^siRpiatl^T Shri Anand Shukla, coun^ No.2 su'biaits fhat fhe respond^nt tiie conteation of counsel for thd has not hauded over the charge el for the Caveator/respondeat Accordmgly, fhe petition ij fhe aforesaid libert\r. 3n fhe inaking such representation \vi^. receipt of this order, the sa4l' aufhorities within. a period of flj. receipt. nt had already joiaed^whereas petitioner is that fhe petitioner ;o the respondent No.2. 3 dism.issed as withdrawn wifh "i/eatuality of the petitioner's hia ten davs from. the date of le would be decided by the iree weeks from. the date of its In tlie laea.ri.wlaile. it is operation of fhe im.pugned orde) P/ 1) shail reiaain. stayed tffl th^ petitioner wffl be allowed to. pe.i place ofpostiag. directed that. fhe effect arid f dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure - ; next date of hearing an.d fhe 'foiin his duft- iii fhe present With fb.e above observatio n, flie petitiou staiids disriosed ot. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge