- 1 - :?Mft* it.nu IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETITIONER ... RESPONDANTS A>'^' ^ ^..^- ^••<-^"^. .^^^ \ ^ BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No. S^O^ 2011 Ramji Dilliwar aged 53 years, Son oflate Shri Lakhanlal Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle Schciol Tirga, District Durg C.G., VERSUS ^ 1. The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur C.G. 2. The District Education Officer, Durg ( C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Durg. -y>'^' •?<6'°"A..-""' ^WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS^ DIRECTION OF ANY OJ'HER APPROPRIATE WRIT. PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5701 OF 2011 Ramji Dilliwar RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Coltector, in accordanee with the policy decision dated 13 June, 2011. 2. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, though the same has been passed by the District Education Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two months, thus, the importance of questioning the transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non- competent officer, has been cancelled. If the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. However, if it is still not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner, in all matters is not likelyto suffer, ifthe petitioner has alreadyaccepted byjoining the new place of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legality andvalidity ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. As a result, if the petitioner has already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofthe petitioner, shall not be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and in administrative exigency. 5. ' Accordingly, the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri ashok Judge :IW!