Ls^7 / - •s ''"•.M^.Sw &&'K»^^yj BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S)No. ^1'^ of 2011 ~7~ PETITIONER B.R. Sahu, aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Chowa Ram Sahu, posted as Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS <2, ^ ..•••W--'^y-'' ^^y^ ...-o^>y ^y ^?"^^...- <-.-: ^- «•• .<-;»• nfly^ :1 ^ 2. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Division, Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA. '••<sii,.- i^y l'i%-l.' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRITEETITIQKIS) N0923 OF 2011. PETITIONER B.R. Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.C. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (Passed on this 9th day of December, 2011) 1. Meard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 23-12-2010 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, Raipur to Janpad Panchayat, Premnagar, District Sarguja 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 11 months on acGount of interim order dated 14-2-2011 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learried counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 23-12-2010. It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 23-12-2010 on account of the interim order dated 14-2-2011, it is nof necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 23-12-2010, in the facts ofthe case. 5. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at fhis stage. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge