SIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR PETITIONER WRTT PETm.PN (S) No. 4773 of2007 Narendra Shrivastava, son of Shri B.L.Shrivastava, aged about 49 years, Occupation - Serviee, Presently posted as Assistant Grade - I in Directorate, Higher Educatioii, Raipur, resident of MD - 264, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Seeretary, Department ofEducatioti, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Tfae Commissioner, Higher Education, Raipur. 3. The Additional Director (T) Directorate, IIigiier Education Department, Raipur. WRTT PETmON LWDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS Present: SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate forths petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy ^^.dvocate General forthe State/ (fassed on 27th day of June, 2008) With the consent of 1fae parties, tbe matter is taken up for hearing fmallv. The petitioner working as Assistant Grade I m the Directorate, Hiaher Education, Raipur was traiisferred in the office of Additional Director, Jagdalpur; by order dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner approached fhis Court ia W.P. No. 3924 of 2007 (Naredra Shrivastava v. State ofChhattisgarh & One). This Court vide order dated 13.7.2007, disposed ofthe petition with liberty grantedto the petitioner to make a representation to the concemed authorities. The petitioner made a represeatation to the State-authorities on 18.7.2007 (Amiexure P/7). The concemed authorities disposed of fhe representation on 26.7.2007 (Annexure P/8) stating that tbe Assistant Grade I and II are class ffl employees, therefore Grade I can be transferred to the post ofGrade II. Being aggrieved; the petitioner has challenged tlie order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the respondent.No. 3 in this petition praying that the same may be quashed, &s admittedly by transfer, the petitioner has been reverted back to the lower post. 4. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits fhat the petitioner is A^sistant Grade I which is a promotional post fi-om Assistant Grade II. By the impuaied transfer order, the petitioner has been reverted back and posted in a place where admittedly, as per the order oflhe authorities, no post of Assistant Grade I is available. Tbus, the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of malafide and not in accordance wjfh law. 5. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for fhe State submits that since both the posts belong to Class III category, interchangeable transfer is permissible. Assistant Grade I can be transferred to Ifae post of Assistant Grade II. The transfer was done in admiDistrative exisency, no allegation ofmalafide can be alleged. 6. I have heard leamed counsel appearine for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The contention of Shri Thakur deserves to be rejected outriehtly as the petitioner may be belonsing to class III catesory, but he is working as Assistant Grade I, whieh is a promotional post and has been appointed by promotion from Assistant Grade II. 7. Thiis,posting fhe petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade II amounts to reversal fi-om the post ofAssistant Grade I to Grade II. The contention of Shri Thakur is contrary to fhe well settled legal position. Thus, the transfer is contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed. 8; Accordinsly, fhe impugned orders dated 26.7.2007 (Armexure P/8) and 29.6.2007 (Annexiire P/4) are quashed. The petition is allowed to Ihe above extent. No order astocosts. ——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit