HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.(SlNo.6974of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Motilat s/o Late Ram Bharos Ram, aged about 51 years, working as Head Clerk in the o/o Divisional Forest Officer, South Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Additional Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 3 The Divisional Forest OfRcer, Forest Division, South Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG) 4 Shri N. Khatkho, Head Clerk, Working plan Forest Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG) WRTT PEriTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA Appearance: 1to3. ^ Shri N.Naha Roy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer, for the State/ respondents no. Shri A.V.Shridhar, counset for respondent no.4 on Caveat Petition No. 892/2W7 ORAL ORDER (22.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA^J. Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 15.11.2007, by which he has been transferred ftom South Forest Division, Ambikapur to Circle office Ambikapur. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argues that the pet'rtioner holds a substantive post of Head Clerk, whereas, he has been transferred and directed tojoin against itie post of Accounts Offieer. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Eariier to this, another writ petition vide W.P.(S)2635/2(K)7 was filed by the petitioner, in which, it was submitted that the petitioner has been working as Head Clerkin the said office and one Mr. N. Khalkho (respondent No.4) of the said petition has been directed to work as Head Clerk in place of the petitioner and no posting was given to the W.P.fStNo. 6974 of 2007 petitioner. On this contention, this Court, by order dated 2.5.2007, directed that the petitioner shall not be disturbed till an order giving him new place of posting is passed. It is after the order, passed by this Court; impugned order dated 15 November, 2007(Annexure P-1) has been passed g'mng new place of posting to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would show that there is also reference of the earlier writ petition in the said order and another writ petition filed by respondent No.4, and the authorities have cleariy stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, this impugned order has been passed. 1 do not find any irregutarity in the order passed by the concerned authority on 15 November, 2007 in the prevailing factiand circumstancesof this case. The petiBon has no merits. The same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Accordingly, Caveat Petition No. 892/2007 stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sfinita ^.