r^-1 d7Z? z- BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. $7,^ /2009 1 PETITIONER ^- ^ ^-.^f-¥ ^> ^y^ ^"! Ishwar Prasad Thakur S/o Late Jagtu Ram Thakur, Aged about 37 years, Government Midle School, Bhimbhauri Block- Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 2) 3) 4) 5) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Directorate of Public Education, Raipur. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham (C.G) District Educaton Officer, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o- Not Known Shiksha Karmi Grade II, Government Pre Middle School, Raxae, Block Sahaspur Lohara, Kabirdham (C.G.) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. L.- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BjLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5086 OF 2009 PETITIONER Ishwa.r Prasad Thakur RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 20th day of October, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 25-8-2009 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Government Pre Middle School, Bhimbhauri to Government High School, Kalyari. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original piace of post;ng for more than 25 months on account of interim order dated 7-9-2009 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance ofthe jmpugned order dated 25-8-2009. It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 25-8-2009 on account of the interim order dated 7-9-2009, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25-8-2009, in the facts of the case. 5. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge