1 '• ^, .^ 1 ^ ^- ^ Sln^Se Bench BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NoMfeCT-/2011 PETITIONER Rafique Khan S/o Late Shri Basharad, aged about 59 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Pre- Middle School, Lalutola, Block Churiya District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ,^.:^•;^< '^^••^^ ..•• ^' ^^^ ...••".^(?\.-:" ^^v>" ^••'' ^" ..'•-'' 1. StateofChhattisgarh, ,/^ 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-) 4. Shri Keshav Prasad Dubey, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Pre- Middle School, Sahaspur, Block Dalli, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. < ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WKn' PETITION (S) No. 4827 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rafique Khan. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. "'^ WRIT PETITION UNDER^RTICIJE 226 OF THECQNSTI'm'nON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashanlc Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QLKBERiQRAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Aimexure P/l), whereby the petitioner working as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Lalutola, Chhuriya, has been transferred to Ivliddle School, Rampur, Chhuikhadan, on administrative grounds. 2. SM Dewangan, leamed counsel appearmg 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 thc employees belonging to class III and IV ser^iccs on proposal made by the departments in approval ofthe mimster-in-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 the impugned order. when the Collector has been assigned 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. Accordmgly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. As a result, the translbr order dated 15.07.2011 (Amiexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is resen/ed to the government to pass appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public interest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotn Judge Ainit