/_——-— W lnv/ ® $E§€§LE QENQR I SGARH LN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI AT BILASPUR ‘£.P.(5) NO. Mkxe5 1 /2o1o Ambrush Khaiko S/o La’re Remis Khalko, aged about 54 year's, Join? Direc’ror' ETITIONER f/ (Finance) Scheduled Casw and Scheduled Tribe Development Deparlmenf, Ruipur, Dis’rl. Manlmlaya, Rcipur (C.6.) LI_EB_5_Q§ WA it Sfa‘re of Chhc’rl‘iSgar‘h The Secremr‘y, I Finance and Plan Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan. ESPONDENTS Through :— Mant ralaya, Raipur (C.6.) Commissioner, Account and Pension, Chhattisgarh Govt. Distt.— Raipur (C5,) 5.K. Saraswat, Director at office of Additional (Finance) 0.. Treasury, Raipur, Additional Commissioner ’ @ 9; Direc’rorm‘e AgricuHure, Raipur', (C.G.) E 226 OF THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICI; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4465 of 2010 Ambrush Khalko PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Anil Singh Rajput counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (31 .1o.2o11) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Government transferring the petitioner on deputation from Anusuchit Jati evam Janjati VikasVibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur to Swami Vivekanand Takniki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhilai, in the capacity of Finance Officer. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an employee of. Finance Department and vide order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) he was transferred from the office of Joint Director (Finance), Administrative Academy, Raipur to Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, in the capacity of Finance Advisor on administrative ground and thereafter almost within a period of one year, he has again been transferred on deputation to Swami Vivekanand Takniki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhilai. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before sending the petitioner on deputation his consent has not been obtained which is contrary to the settled legal posmon as laid down by the Apex Court In the matter of Umapati Choudhary v State of Blhar and another reported rn (1999) 4 SCC 659 and rn the matter of State of Punjab and others v lnder Srngh jand others reported rn (1997) 8 SCC 372. He submrts that the petitioner would not have any objection if he had been transferred to any other place gab ” .12,— from his present place of posting but in any case he can not be sent on deputation without his consent. 4. In the return filed by the State Government it is nowhere stated that consent of the petitioner was obtained before sending him on deputation. State counsel however submits that there is no need of obtaining consent of the petitioner before sending him on deputation because the place where he has been sent on deputation is a cadre post. 5. Heard counsei for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From the document of Annexure R-1 dated 6.7.2009 it is apparent that post of Finance Officer, Swami Vivekanand Takniki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhilai, is earmarked to be filled up by deputation. Admittedly, no consent has been obtained from the petitioner before sending him on deputation, which is contrary to the aforesaid settled legal position of law. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is hereby quashed. However, as the petitioner has no objection in transferring him to some other place, it would be open for the respondents to transfer him accordingly if administrative exigency so warrants. 7. Petition is thus allowed. 1y $d/ i , Prltinkér Diwaker l g Judg A