IggEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NowwH /2o11 PETIT!ONER : Parasnath Mahendra, S/o Shli‘ \ %71WMO years, Bhagbali Posted Mahendra, as Head aged Masier, about Go‘d. b} 4 g€$;,.e.:\it:... ‘j avg? o g\.Z/f District Primary Durg School, (C.G.) Kharra, Block~ Gurur ‘ 5 VERSUS 3 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Schoo! Education Departmenl, Department, D‘K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Collector, Durg, District Durg (CG) District Education Officer, Durg, , District Durg (C.G.) WFx’lT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA, / ‘1} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition underAiticIe 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 19‘ day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner working as Head Master, at Primary School Kharra, Block Gurur, Durg, has been transferred to Primary School, Gota, Dhamda, on administrative grounds. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 clearly states that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to class lll and class IV services on proposal made by the departments in the approval of the minister~in~charge 4. ln the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, had m passed the impugned order, when the Collector has been assigned ‘ h” ‘ ,, the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/1), in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the Government to pass appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public interest. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent, Sdl- SATISH K. ANGNH'IORI Judge Gowri WRIT PETITION (S),NO.4754 OF 2011 PETITIONER Parasnath Mahendra Versus RESPONDENTS