if c^ Sll BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NoM&2-^ /2011 PETITIONER ^y^.^f ^'-:^^y'"" Anish Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Shri O Noor Khan, aged about 48 years, hlead Miaster, Primary School, Singdai, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) t>^'" .&••••" ^ RESPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2." Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .<^u WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^.ssess^ ^^a^"^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRYT PETITION fS) No. 4826 of 2011 PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS Anish AbmGd Khan. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. n^ Wmr PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrmiON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Sliri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRDER(ORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby ttie petitioner working as Head Master, at Primary School, Sigdai, Rajnandgaon, has been transferred to Primary School, Kliaprikala, Rajnandgaon, showing it to be on hls own request. 2. Shri Dewangan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, it is cleariy stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the ©mployeesbelonging to class HI and IV services on proposal made by the departments in approval of the iiiinister-in-charge. It is farther submitted that the petitioner never made any request for his transfer from the present place ofposting. 3. In the case on hand, it appears tliat the District Education Ofilcer, Rajnandgaon, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, has passed the impugned order, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this sufi[brs from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reser^ed to the government to pass appropriate order, if so advised. in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public interest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit