IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) Vlo. ^Z^ \ 2011 PETITIONER V^Y^%^. ^^£E^ ^.......---•^^ 1 RESPONDANTS Khamhan Rajput aged 53 years, Son of Late Shri Manbahalsingh, Peon, Middle School Rajpur, Block Dhamdha, District Durg C.G., VERSUS f.The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, School Education Department. -^D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur C.G. 2. District Education OfKcer, Durg. C.G. WMT PETinON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNsnTunoN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. A^ E;.y^-s'?-.*?' s^g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S) N0.7271 OF 2011 PETITIONER Khamhan Rajput Versus RESPONDENTS The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri S.K. Dadsena, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. O R D E R (Passed on this 9th day of DeCember, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The impugned order was passed on 15-7-2011. The petitioner did not take any steps to question th6 legality & validity of the same on the ground that the District Education Officerwas not competent to pass the order, as was held by this Court in Girdhari Lal Sahu v. Sfafe of Chhattisgarh & Another . Once the petitioner has accepted the position, in normal course he should have complied withthe orderdated 15-7-2011. 3. At this stage, the impugned order cannot be quashed on a simple ground that the order passed by the District Education Officer in similar circumstances had been quashed. Secondly, it is a transfer matter wherein the transfer is always at the discretion of the employer in the public interest as well as in.the administrative exigency. 1 4. Thus, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the advantage of thp decision of this Court in Girdhari Lal Sahu (supra), as the law is well settled that if an employees sleeps over his rights and the order is given effect to, it is not necessary to pass a similar order, which was passed in a case where the employee had come --^^7 ' WP (S) No.5276 of 201 1 (decided on 08-9-2011) -^ •WsstS 6. at an appropriate time for the relief. (See : Tulsiram Sahu & Others i/. State of Chhattisgarh & 0?/?ere2). The Supreme Court in Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and 0 ere , observed that a writ remedy is a discretionary remedy. The Court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or laches, indisputably, are the relevant factors. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ?- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2 WP (S) No.1864 of^OIO (decided on23-4-2010) 3 (2009) 1 SCC 297