SlngteBench /iV^- <w c^ r^^ v INTHE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS \.^'> ./' ^.y/ f%<^ ^y^' \ ^/".^Y \y W. P. (S) No. ^319-12011 Vishesh Kuniar Sahu S/o Shree Jagraohan Prasad, Aged about 53 years, Occupation Service, Presently posted as Assistant Grade II at the District Education Office, Baikunthpur, block Baikunthpur, district Koriya (C.G.) VERSUS , 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) ^2. District Education Officer, Baikuthpur, district Koriya (C.G.) 3. Collector, Koriya district Koriya (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETJTiONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARHj_B!LAS_PUR WRiT PETITiON (S) No. 5317 OF 2011 "Vlshesh Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others V ^r ^-^ l sshok (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER rORAU (Passed on this 09 day of September, 2011) 1. ChalSenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner working as Assistant Grade-l! at the Office of Dlstrict Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, has been transferred to Govt. Boys Higher Secondary Schooi, Patna, Block Baikunthpur, District Koirya.on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer poiicy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is ciearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the empioyees beionging to Ciass-ill & IV services on proposal made by the other departments in approvai of the minister in-charge. 3. In the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer, without foiiowing the guideiines issued in the transfer poiicy had passed the prder jmpugned, when the Coliector has been assigned the responsibjjity of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal ofthe concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordlngiy, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of iaw. 4. As a resuit, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, iiberty is reserved to tne government to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with admlnistrative exigency and in pubiic poiicy, in accordance with iaw. 5. Accordingiy. the writ petition Is aiiowed to the above-extent. Sd/- .. , SatishK.Agnihotri Judge