c^'^\ ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT-BILASPURfC.G.) WRITPETITIONNO, 4-138 OF 2004 PETITIONER \^-tf \^. BETWEEN /FIRTURAMSAHU ' AGED-54YEARS, V.--'/ 6^' ^A SON OF SHRI BHAGAU RAM SAHU y\ y ,.--c POSTED AS - ASSISTANT TEACHER, 7..- \y .•• p^ _ GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, KUM] yay'-fC-" v' ^' ..-<l .••'^ ^y ''^y AT- GOVT. MTODLE SCHOOL, KUMHARI, BLOCK-KASDOL, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) R/0 KUMHARI, BLOCK - KASDOL, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) t?" VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^^- .S^cA" ~ /" 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH - THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. MANTRALAY, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2. THE DISTMCT EDUCATION OFFICER, 3. AT-RAIPUR(C.G.) BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, AT - KASDOL, DISTT. - RAIPUR (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE- 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF mDIA^FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT m THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. SUITABLE DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS H ^l w XI-HC—78 3!RW W R-li«b ';T?Tf sn^r sh^tlsti 9 \ ^n;1 'S^f '^i^idfl,, •s'al'M+is,' ls|'?ii'IHy,< ^::.&.:^.ss.^.........:...... !200^ an^TTra^c TOilw^v^ an^i 14.01.2cM)5:- ShriR.K.I^safWanileamed Shri Akhil Agrawal.leamed l-1eard. insyint ewgelliCy The petitioner by friis inst^nt ortlerdated 13.08.20iD4 ofAnnextlre transferFed from Govl. Middle Setlool School, Datrenga, Dharshyan on without any admini^raUve teaGher should; be ipos^ /for^ Kumhari, Kasdol hutlthis ratiet.hN the petitioner orily one l-feadniast^r coynsel for the petttioner furthe|' representaUon on 20.09.M04^foi| however, hisrepresentation'litendt On the other Hand tearned fromthe perusal ofthe transfer but other teachers have also and the transfer is an incidenee Apex Court has timeand again the matters of transfer unless it i^ done malafidely. In this regard,2( bytheStatecounsel. chi'(i[^<-ili +tiH<'ii*^f^^ <r<ii^i< ^?3ifg*?3n^i •• cpunsel forthe;petitioner.; '.l-.forlheState/Fespondent. jaetition has challenged the transfer P/1 by.wliiehtRe petitionerhasbeen l.lfiimliari, Kasdol to Govt. ^Primary |Bie ground'tliat the order of^ransfer is 'and^as iper Shil^ha Sanhita one tvery ' - studente in Middle ScBool, iinoPhSeri observe<tas aftertransferof • remajns intnesaidSChool.Leamed submifs tftat. the petjtiener roade a caneellation of his Iransfer order but Ibeendecided. lcounsel for the respondent submits that prjler it iselear that not only the petitioner be^n transterted on administrative ground oflservice^ it cah ncrt be challenged as the h41d that the Court should riot interfere in showri that IS 'prohibited or it has been )03 volume4SCC 3104 isrelied upon B? 8!:; ^•";.^^^ .-^^^^^ '^^1 :>a-HC—78 ^sf 'AIIAIICI*I, g'nl'iii'Kn^fac-ii'';)^ —. ..(^^0.:..^9^;?....:.;.. 9 3T^?T 'CRR? ('j^f^'yT) an^i^ii'fefi^ '?r£ET3T?^?T ^)+INi -s 'ffi •i.!iv y' i l^B^f f,v|| ^ 1^<nw ^ift'if sfi^r 2- Considering the iacts and 41 opihion ttat the instent petition dismissedanditisacGordinglydisr^issed jircumstances of the case, I am 6f the ttas no merits and it deserves to be tiillCT'ili Mwni^fs^ tfa^K ^srfgiTSK^I Sd/- / Dhirendra Misbra Judge h