FETITIONER : M.K.Guyta S/o Shri B.L.Guyta, Aged about 44 years, Senior Agiculture Development Offlcer, Presently posted in the Ofo Deputy Director, Agn'cuhure, Dhamtari; R/o of Behind Pragati STD Rudri road, Dhamtari, District Dhamatari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh — Through the Secretary, Agiculture Department DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 3VR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie SM satish k Agehong. Present: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5889 of 2005 2. The Uniier Secretary Department of Agriculture, State of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan Raipur (CG) 3. The Director, Agieulture, Labhand; Road, Raipur (CG) Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Amit Vennm Advocate for the proposed respondent Kornal Singh Diwan. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 153i day of September, 2008) The petitioner impugns the transfer order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner working as Senior Agriculture Development Odicer at Dhamtari has been transferred to the ofiioe of Deputy Director: Agliculture: Kanker. On hearing; notice was issued on 24.11.2005 and the impugned transfer order in respect ofthe petitioner was stayed. By virtue of interim ordergranted to the petitioner, the petitioner has already remained at the old place of posting since 24.11.2005. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if the impugned order of transfer is quashed, the petitioner has no right to continue at the same place of posting in his career for ever. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has aheady been there for almost three years, it is not necessaxy to go into the merits of the case. Learned counsel appeaxing’ for the State submits that the compliance of the order impugmed shall not be insisted upon. However, 1iberty be granted to the State-respondent to pass any order in the public interest to post the petitioner at any place. In View ot’the above, this petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the State-respondents to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the ‘puhiic interest and administrative exigency, if so requires, Without insisting on compliance of the impugied transfer order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P/Z). consequently, Mm)? No. 4682/2005, 1024/2006, 4198/2006 and 1A No. 9842i2006, stands disposed of. ’ , ' Sdl- “7/ Satish K. Agnihom r‘ Judge