a s© IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \0\P WRIT PETITION (S) N0. l~ " OF 2011 PETITIONER : / ^}.<^. ^^ .^ .^0^^' oS.ey ^•^' ^'\..--"' >•• »-f Sfttf Ku. Abista Xess, D/o Late Shri Habil Xess, aged about 48 years, presently posted and working as Head Master, Govt. Girls Priraary School, Lendra, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through 'the Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Collector, Raigarh (CG). 3. District Education Officer, Raigarh (CG). ^~ 4. Block .Education Officer, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG). / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '<^lyK--""'\ .'j t,^ \\v H1GH CO'URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fS) No. 4060 pf20H PETfflONE;R : Ku.AbistaXess. RE8PONDENTS VERSUS State of'Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON U'NDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'I'HE CONSTn'tJIION OF INDIA SB:,Hon'.Me SIm Satish K. AgBuhotn,_J. Present: Sfari D.R-Patel, Advocate fbrfhe petitioner Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer fartfae Sti (Passed oa 09th day ofAugust, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby, the petitioner, woridng as Head Master, Govemmeat Girls Primary School, Leadra, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh, Primary School, Sonpur, Dharamjaigarh, showiag it to be on her own request. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no application on the part oftlie petitioner to transfer her fi-om one place to another place. Thus, the impugned order to transfer the petitionei- on the ground ofbeing on her own request, is bad in law and does not come withhilhe purview ofadministrative exigency. Ori 27.07.2011, time was granted to the State counsel to seek instmctions asto whether the petitioner has ever made any request tbr her tt-ansfer. No response has yet been fiied. It appears fhat fhe transler order has been passed not on the request ofthe petitioner. Tlius, the same is vitiated. L-i view ofthe foregoing, the transfer order 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner, is vitiated being contrary to the well settled principles of law and is aecordingly quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the competent aufhority to pass a Iresh order in administrative exigency asd public interest, if Accordmgly, the writ petition is allowed to fhe above extent. No order asto costs. Amit Satish K. Agnihoti-i Judge