C^ \a^J ^g&fi^ 8:6 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OP CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. ^(0^^-/2010 PETITIONER 'i.L. Sao S/o Late Kamta Prasad Sao, aged about 55 years, Resident of Sao Sadan, Ashirwad Colony Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^ ^ ^?^>/ ^w" .•••;\ ^1';^'" .;'"'l '•'fif-' ..•-'' <'1" ^'' ^' The State of Chhattisgarh through secretary Animal Vetenary (Pashudhan Vikas) Departinent; D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 'i./ Deputy Director Vetenary Services, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3.- Assistant Surgeon Vetenary Key Village Unit, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4.y/ Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sanvant Sahu, aged about 44 years, Resident of Village Bhanwarmara, Post Singhola, Tehsil Distriet Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITIOJL UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR_ JSSUE^ ^f_ MANDAMUS, CERCIORARY PROHIBITION ETC. OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER .^t^S''3i'-^S % i@3' HIGH COURT OF CHH.WTISG.'^RH AT BILASPUR WRCTPETmON (S) No. 6632 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS B.LSao. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh& 'DOIA W-RIT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITTUriO] SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotn, J. Present: Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocate with Shi-i Rahul Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Tnakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to3. Shfi Ali Asgar, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. (Passed on 06111 day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subnrits that vide order dated 15.7.2010 (Aruiexure P/l), the petitioner, working as Assistant Veterinar^' Fieid OfEcer, Parri, was traiisfened to Veterinar;.' Dispensary, Bharda, District Rajnandgaon and vide the same onler, the respondent No. 4 was traiisfeired from Bharda to Parri, District Rajnandeaon. Pursuant to the said order, the petitionerjoined the new place ofposting on 16.09.2010 at Bharda. Tliereafter, the transfer of the petitioner andthe respondent No.4 were canceiled vide order dated 04.10.2010 (Amexure P/6) and they were directed to join their old place of' posting. Since the petitioner has already complied with the order dated 15.7.2010, the same camiot be caiicelled. but the respondent authorities are pressurizing the petitioner to join the old place of posting i.e. at Parri vide order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexiire P/5). . 2. Qn the other haiid, Shri Ali, leai-ned counsel appearins for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondeiit No. 4 was never relieved ..from his orisinal place ofpostine and he is continuing at Bharda. lll!i]l;:i' ,^^^s^> ,^ ^••'!i. •'^, B'!aSSI^. s'-^i£i ^,.^ 3. Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General ap^eanag-^ith Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer appearing forthe State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that in view ofthe above situation, the State/respondents may be granted libertyto pass a fresh order, quashingthe subsequent orders dated 04.11.2010 (.'\miexure P/5) and 04.10.2010 (Aimexure P/6) of cancellation ofthe transfer. 4. It is weli settled principle oflaw that the High Court should be loathe in interfering with the transfer order except in case of malafide exercise of power, infringement of statutory rules or lack of competence ofthe officer passing the order. However, without going iiito merits of the case, the impugned order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure P/5) and 04.10.2010 (Aimexure P/6) are qiiashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 to pass a fresh order in respect ofthe petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4, keeping in view the public interest and adniinistrative exigency, if so advised. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agni^tn Judge Amit