{QwaBJ/ S.B. 1Service Matter) IN THE HQN’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT, BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITIONS) No. mohk‘ /2o 1g. Dau Kalyan Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.’ f’Chief Forest Conservator, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ’3’: Divisional Forest Officer, Durg Forest Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 47’Forest Conservator, Durg Forest Circle, Durg, District Durg, > Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Mf » ‘ / PETITIONER: Sattar Khan, son of Late Abdul 54 / Rahim Khan, aged about years, Dhamdha, ?’)’W\ working as Deputy Ranger, of w ‘ Durg Forest Division, residence Mandir, versus _ . Kv Chhattisgarh, through Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, of Forest, Secretaly, Department HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2104 0f2010 PETITIONER : Abdul Sattar Khan. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QE 'IHE CONSTITUTION OF DQDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotd, J. Present: \ Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 05 day ofJuly, 2011) , l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No 3 i.e. Divisional Forest Ohicer, Durg, has no competence to transfer a Deputy Ranger ii'om one area to another area even on a complaint made against him. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner vide the impugted order dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P/l) norm Forest Range, Dhamdha to Forest Range, Dalli, is illegal. Shri Gupta relies on a communication dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure P/3) of the Under Secretary, Forest Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, wherein it is stated that the impugled order passed by the respondent No. 3 was not an order of posting but an order of transfer, which could not have been done by him. . The State/respondents has filed its return wherein no attempt has been made to establish hom any documents, notifications or statutory provisions that the communication dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure P/3) was not in accordance with law but the respondent No. 3 had power to transfer a Deputy Ranger from one place to other place. . Further contention of the State counsel is that the tansfer has been made on account of complaim. However; on the question of swish that the jurisdiction, nothing has been produced to e communication Gfthe Under Secretary was not correct. fthere is a complaint, no . It is well settled proposition oflaw that eveni transfer order con be passed by any incompetent person which. has olearly been held by the Under Secretary, Forest Depmtmem, in its 'cation dated 18.02.2009 (Annexul'e P/3) to the Chief Conservator of Forest. . Thus, the mpugeéd mder dated 26.04.2010 (meme M) being passed by the incompetent oKxcet, is vitiated. The order dated is quashed. commum 26.04.2010 (Anneme Pu) in resyec't’ ofihe petitioner, 6. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs.