.^y:^^ ^^;-^3^^" './••" ,.'>A'^-\^x.i-;;" ^^y '-3-".-"' .•»"' ,0V'' ^7 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W.P.tSlNo. 3:7^tf of 2010 SiNGLE €H ^ PETITIONER Dr. S.S. Rajput, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Nathu Singh Rajput, R/o G-1, Govemment Polity Forin Campus, Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Veterinary (Pashudhan) Development Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QELTH^ CONSTITUTION OP INDIA -<';. ^^—•"ijl •y ft ^-^j^ (^•^v ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARB AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WKIT PETITION (S) No. 3704 of2010 Dr. S.S.Rajput. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AenihQtrj, J. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofMarch, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 15.07.2010 (Armexure P-1), whereby the order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/4) has been amended in spite of the fact that the same has already been executed. 2. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner, working as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon at Jagdalpur, District Bastar, was transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Bastanar, Disb-ict Bastar on administrative grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved on 10.03.2010 (Aimexure P/5) and subsequently, the petitionerjoined the transfen-ed place ofposting on 15.03.2010 (Annexure P/6). However, after compliance of the order dated 29.06.2009, vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/l), the order dated 29.06.2009 was amended to the extent that he was transferred to the office of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Kanker \ ^ Amit 3. Shri Sharma further submits that the order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P/4) cannot be amended as the same has already been executed and the petitioner joined at the transferred place. Thus, the order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that on account of some administrative exigency, the earlier transfer order was amended and the petitioner was given a new place ofposting at District Kanker. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. In the opinion ofthis Court once the transfer order is executed, it is not necessary to cancel the same. The employer is always at liberty to pass a fresh order of transfer and posting of an employee, keeping in view the administrative exigency and public interest. 7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents/employer to pass an order, if so advised, in accordance with law, keeping in view the public interest and admmistrative exigency. 8. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge liliflimaaad!