(h. 'niiit'1 HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. 3236/2007 R.K.Dhoere, S/o. Shri Kaaai Dhoere, aged 52 years, Occupation : Service, presentiy posted as Sub Divisional Officer, T.D.P.P. Water Resources Sub Divusion, Sukma, Division Daatewada (South Bastar) R/o. Sukma, Tahsil- Sulana, Tahsfl Sukina, District Daatewada (South Bastar) (CG) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh Govenrment, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Engiaeer in Chief, Water Resources Departinent, Sihava Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Soufh Bastar, Daatewada (CG) K.S.Ramaiya, Sub Divisional Officer, TDPP,Water Resources Sub Divisioa Dantewada, District Dantewada (CG) WRIT PETITI03SU»iDERARTICLE 226 OF THE COMSTITUTION 2. 3. 4. (SB: Houtile Mr. Satish K. Ag@Uiotri, J,» Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, couasel for fhe petitioner. Shri S.K.Mishra, Paael lawyer for fhe State/respondeut No. 1, 2 & 3. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, couasel for respondent No.4. ORDER (Passed on this 16th day of Sovember 2007) The petitioner challenges his transfer froia Sukma as Sub- Divisional Officer, Water Resources Departiuent, Sub-Division Siikma to TDPP, Water Resoiu-ces, Sub-Division Daatewada. The respondent No.4 wlio was posted at TDPP, Water Resources, Sub- ^ -i- Division Dantewada was traD.sferred to Water Resoiu-ces Department, Sub-Division Siikiua in place ofthe petinoner. 2. TIus Court, after hearing the parties, passed a status quo order on 11.06.2007. By virtue ofthe iateriin order, the petitioner continued at his own place at Sub-Division Sukcaa aad the respondent No.4 continued at his origiaal place of posting i.e. at TDPP, Water Resources, Sub-Division Dantewada. 3. The mam ground of chaUenge of fhe petitioner was fhat fhe petitiouer has been trausferred wifhia a period of seven inonths. Now the petitioner aad respondent No.4 are at tlieir old places for about six inonths. 4. The chaBenge of fhe petitiouer on the ginund of traasfer on seven nionths is not available to hini, as he has coinpleted one year at his old place. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the respoudent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is on the verge of retireinent. It is fhei^fore under ftie poUcy of fhe Govemnient fhat he should be placed at fhe appropriate place at his request. 6. Be fhat as it laay, wiftiout goiag into the inerits ofthe case, in view of the subinission inade by the leamed counsel appearing for fhe State that the State Goverrunent wiU consider fhe case of the petitioner aud respondent No.4 for postuig fheiu at appropriate places ia public iaterest, nothing survives ia this inatter. •"-^ aSpnf uioqiugv "M qsPBS -/PS £9 •jspio pauSndun: aiftjo 3ouBi{duioo Supsisur ^noqiiM 'sqaaAi icio} }0 pouad B mxpus. AjqBJ3j3.td a^qissod sv £pS3 SB 3Aoqe pafeis se pypsaa sip op c^ paioajip si ays^s 3tR '.I3A3MOH 'jo pasodsTp 'Ai§uipjoo3B si iiOT^p.ad aqj, •z v .-'^'^^^t <^*' 4^ ^ ^^SSSaTn^ ';- ^^-s"^^' -eimSns