IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(SlNo. fZ&^ /2010 PETITIONER .v%^'/ ^^y \y .••''. 1. ^'^-"' ^^' ,*f RESPONDENTS Smt. Vidyottama Aacharya Wife of Shri U.C. Aacharya Aged about 50 years, Occupation - Service, posted AS Supervisor, Head OfBce, C.G. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, New ShantiNagar, Raipur (C.G.) - VERSUS , 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Gra&odyog, Mantrayalaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.j 2. The Managing Director, C.G. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board, New Shantinagar, Raipur (C.G.) -3. Shri P.D. Bhagel, (age and father's narae" not known to the petitioner) Posted as Deputy Directpr (Establishment) C.G. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board, New Shantinagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Ms. Sarita Jaithwar, (age and father's name not khown fo the petitioner) Posted as A.G.,-II, Khadi Bhandar Jagdalpur Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As given above in the cause tifle. 1 HIGH COURT Cff CHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WRiT PETITION (S) N0.1283 OF 2010 Smt. Vidyottama Aacharya Versus State of ChhatUsgarh & Ottiers (Writ Petitlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petationer. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawyer for the State. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate on behaif of Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Nons for the respondent No.3 & 4. OgDERJOfiAy (Passed on this23"rdayofFebruaiy, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to .challei^e the tegality and valkfity of the order dated 19/03/2010 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Raipurto Jagdalpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Stat®submits that the pedtioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more Vhan 11 months on account of interim order dated 26/03/2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsef further submits tfiat theState/respondents shall not insist upon compiiance of the Impugned order dated 19/03/2010 (Annexure P/1). it is accordingly ordered. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has no objection, if so adwsed order shall be passed only in accordance with law. 5. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 19/03/2010 (Annexure P/1) on account of the interim order dated 26/03/2010, it is not necessary to go into the legatity and validity of the impugned order dated 19/03/2010 (Annexure P/1), in the tects ofthe case. 6. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petiUon for adjudication atthis stage. 7. Accordingiy, the peUtionstands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge