0mgW/A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NoHH/gg/zon / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. .Raqph‘ PETITIONER / Vimla Kashyap, W/o Shri Dilip Singh Kashyap, Aged about 47 years, at present working as upper Division Teacher, Govt. “N Middle School, Semarchunwa, Block Qgw <9? $5“ J‘ r o3 \. Block Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) yifkgy VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. > Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. / Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. / District Education Officer, l Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.), xc. ,4. Block Education Officer, / Mungeli‘, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4265 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.S‘Patel, Advocate for the petitioner‘ Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 03‘ day of August, 2011) 1. Leagned counsel appean'ng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Upper Division Teacher in Middle School, Semarchunwa, Block Mungeli, however, she has been shown as Head Mistress, and has been transferred to Primary School, Hathni, Block Bilha vide order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). The same is bad in law on the gound that firstly, the petitioner is not Head Mistress and secondly, the petitioner is not working in Primary School. In the impugied order, the place of posting has been shown as Primary School, Semarchunwa and her post has been shown as Head Mistress which is in fact Upper Division Teacher and the school is also a Middle School. The petitioner, being an Upper Division Teacher can be posted only in a middle school. 2. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the petitioner submits that if there is any error in the impugned transfer order, as alleged by the petitioner, appropriate order shall be passed if necessary, in case of administrative exigency. Before that, the impugied order shall not be given effect to. 3. In View of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is dispOSed of. PETITIONER : Vimla Kashyap. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & O1hers.