:13 ¥ cw»; m, ‘ 1 @ C/F we .// $§ng§e 8mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S)N0. $26 12009 PETITIONER //Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Garun Ram Sharma, Aged about 52 years, By occupation — Head Master, Primary Schooi, Baigapara, Distt. — Korea (C.G.) VERSUS ’ l : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through RESPONDENTS The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Deveiopment, Distt. — Korea (C.G.) The Collector, Distt. — Korea (C.G.) The Biock Education Officer, Bharatpur, Distt. — Korea, Narendra Singh S/o not known to the petitioner, Age about — not known, By occupation — Head Master, Primary Schooi Janakpur, Block — Bharatpur, Distt. — Korea (C.G.) \ ix) °°\- \ e on = N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA R WGH CGURT OF CHHA?TESGH ‘M' BEIASPUR (Hen. Mr. Juséice i3ri€im€er mwaker) WE'EE F‘e‘éiéamn (S) N6. 939 0f 2@% Shiv Kumar Sharma. PEWTEONER VERSU$ State of Chhattisgarh an$\thers. %ESPONDENTS Shri Anand Shukia counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents/State. WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTlON OF ENDIA ORDER (es.oz.2ooe) finaiiy. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard Chaiienge in the instant petition is to the order dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Primary School Baigapara to Primary School, Kunwari just within a period of 20 days from his posting at Baigapara, in vloiation of the transfer policy. This petition was tiled on 10.2.2009 and the stay was granted in tax/our of the petitioner vide order dated 13.2.2009. Contention of the counsel for the parties is that this Court may quash the impugned transferiorder: by giving iibeity to the respondents to pass fresh order if administrative exigency so warrants. in View of the submissions of the counsei for the respective parties and iooking to the fact that the petition was flied on 10.2.2009 and stay was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 13.2.2009, the impugned order dated 27.12.2008 so far as it reiates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shaii be free to pass the order afresh it administrative exigency necessitates the same. With the aforesaid observation. the petition stands disposed/toy? W / / / s& t 0\\Na\ke‘ ‘ - ?t'\'{‘“\ke