^^er^- iR^I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. ( S) No. A^^ /2010 PETITIONER -^" ^"$?' ^^ "..^^ (ft..^ '">' <y''\^--" ^fe: Damodar Pandey, S/o Late Mahavir Prasad Pandey, aged about 46 years, Occupation- Service as Head Master, Government Primary School Deviganj Ward Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS \^p'^yi \J^ ^ ''^-'^•'^fS^^ "^ ; 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.); 2. 'The Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ^ 3. The District Education Officer, Ambikapur Distt Sarguja (C.G.) f' 4. The Block Education Officer, Ambikapur Distt Sarguja (C.G.) ^ ' 5. Pay Center Incharge, Sadar, Ambikapur Distt Sarguja (C.G.) 6'. Office of General Establishment, Sadar, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ^ 7. S. N. Wardhan Head Master Govemment Primaiy School, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2774 of 2010 Damodar Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others <<" (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner . Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 4th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that vide order dated 26-4-2010 (Annexure - P/3) the petitioner was posted as Head Master, Deviganj, in block Ambikapur. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 20-5-2010 (Annexure - P/1) the respondent No.7 has also been posted at the same place after revocation of his suspension whereas there is only one post of Head Master in the school. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 8 months on account of interim order dated 18-6-2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon complianceof the earlier orders. It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since the petitioner is working at his present place of posting on account of the interim order dated 18-6-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 20-5-2010 (Annexure P/1), in the facts ofthe case. 5. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petjtioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication, at this stage. 6. _ Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge