>• IN TME HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CMI-lAmsSARIrl AT BILASPUR W.P.l_(SLiN0. L(^;2— /2011 PBTITIONER ftESPQN&ENTS ,^~ ,'•• ^J*s>~ ../' 7\^y^.. ••"' '\c^'~;.-;^'\'^ ^MW'" ^ A?" ^1"<>-^ f Ck<>»tu*> Kr'ishna Ghaff^ Chandra, S/o Late 0 Shri Nansai, aged about 60 years, Headmaster (Pr'iniary) (Tribal Welfar'e D.epartment) Primary School Sendha, Blqck Manehdragarh, Distt. Kor'ea (C.6.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretar)' Tribal Vl/elfare Development &epartment, &.K.S. &hdwQii, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Depdr'tmeht,' Baikunthpur, Distt. -Korea (C.6.) 3. The Collector, Bistrict -Korea (C.6.) 4. Block Education Officer, Btock -Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.6.) WRITPE'l'fnON UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF TH_E €QNSTITUnON OF IN&IA PETITIONER HIGH GOURTOPCHHArriSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4672 OF 2011 Krishna Charan Chandra ; RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhatttegarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutton of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. ? Present:- Shri Anil Singh Rqput, Advocate for ttie petitioner. -. Shri AjitSingh, Panel Lawyer for the State. • QRDER (Passed on this 23rd dayof September, 2011) . 1; Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that the petitioner was promoted from the post of A^istant Teacher to the post of Head Master and posted at Primary School Sendha, Block Manendragarh, Vide impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has beentransferred to Primary School Hathvari, Block Bharatpur, on administrative grounds. Shri Rajput, further submits that the said order is defective, as the petittoner has been shown as Assistant Teacher, whereas, he isthe Headmaster. 2. Shri Sao, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that, if there is any clerical mistake in the impugned transfer order.as aforestated, the same shalt be corrected and a fresh order shail be passed. He further submits that till then, the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) shall not be given effect to in respect ofthe petitioner. 3. tn view of the above, according to l^med counsel appearing for the 4)etitioner, nothing suroives for adjudication in this matter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of wtth the aforestated observation. ! Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMORI Judge ashok