(W2 l<rzf >ingteBench BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NoM%><Z-&/20l1 PETITIONER ^ ^^^ ^&^ff^ ,^..^^-y-::::.;....- ^^^'••:::.r;";""" ^^v\.^^ A^.--"" \°\ Vednath Khopragade S/o Shri Sakharam Khopragade aged about 46 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Pre- Middle School, Lakholi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3.'" District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 4r",^^y'%:. \ / /' ^'^ '"t' VSSI^ t i ^ss^ | ^-v^ r mGHCQURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBI.ASPLIR PETmQNER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4828 of2011 Vednath Khopragade. VERSUS State ofClihattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION L7NDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITlTnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AsnihotrLJL Present: Slm Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRDERJORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioner working as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, has been transferred to Middle School, Bharregaon, Rajnandgaon. on administrative grounds. 2. Shri Dewangan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to class III and IV services on proposal made by the departments in approval ofthe minister-m-charge. 3. In the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, has passed thc iinpugned order, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibiiity of transfer of the employees working in the concemed district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers froni the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. As a result the traiisfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Amiexure P/l) in respect of the petitioncr 1s quashed. However, iiberty is reserved to the goveriunent to pass appropriate order, ifso advised, in accordance with law, in admimstrative exigency and in public interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. sd/- .. .. SatishK-Agnihotn Judge Anut