c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETITIONER ... .oW^^ '^•'s^^ ^o-" ,.tfAr o-'V\"'' '^-••^'y^ RESPONDANTS BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No. 2011 Smt. Munni Thakur,/aged 47 years, W/o Shri Punit Ram Thakur, Head Master, Govt. Boys Priraary School, Pairi, Block Gunderdehi Tahsil and District, Durg, C.G. VERSUS 1. The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S., Bhavan, Raipur C.G. 2. The District Education Officer, Durg C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS^ DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. 'i ,sef " ':s?^ ,f:y -sseS-. A r( ^\ PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS H'GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WR!T PETtTiON (S) No. 5154 OF 2011 Smt. iViunni Thakur Versus The State Govt. of Chhattisgam & Another (Writ Petltion under Articls 226 ofthe Constitution of !ndia) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Sh'i Somkant Verma, ,' Shri Shashank T for tne petitioner. ! Law-i/er for the State. OffnFls i-nRAi > S/i ^i-/i«.i\ ^S^-i'\f~'tit«. (Passed on tnis 05"" day of Ssptsmber, 2011) -earned counsei aopeanna for the oetitioner submits that under the transfsr poiicy dated 13.08.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is ciearly stated that the Coiiector aione is competent to transfsr tha employees beionainci to Ciass-ii! & iV services on proposa! made by the other deoartments In aDDroval of the minister In-cnarge. i.n the case on hand, it appears that ths District Education Officer without foilowing the guideiines issued in the transfer poiicy had passed the.order imBugned. when the Goilecfor has been assignsd the rssponsibiiity of transfer of the employees worklng in the concemed district, on p.roposai of tne concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the dsfect of comDetence of the ofiicer. AccordinQiy, in% IFSHSTSr iS UHSUSISiHSDiw iH ?n9 6VS3 OT ISW. As a resu!t. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in rescect or fte ueiifioner is auashed. However, iiberty is reserved to ihe dovsrnmerit to pass an approDriaie ordsr, if so advised, in sccQmspCc Ws7ji somiHiSZfSLiys sxicisncv SEHO in ouoiic ooiicy, ir scsoraance WKn ;aw. Accordjngly, the writ pst;tion is allowed to the above-extent. No order ssfo costs. 4-1 Satish K. Agnihctri Judge