Cgf ® gFoRE THE’HIGH ' COURT v OF cHHATnsGARH "55w ~ .1 200g :ATB)LA$PUR‘(C_G1 wRiT PETmoN (s mo; . ‘ Shailen’dra KUmar Dani _ w— “:3 V S/o Rio Shri Ward Devendra No. '10, Bani‘apara, Kumar ahi ’ Dhamidh‘a, District Durg (C.G) PETlfIéNER VERSUS State of Chh’amsgarh' , Through Schooi Education Chief. segratory, Department H D.K.S Bhavan, Raipur ' Raiiv Gandhi u Distriét'Diiectorli poiiecior Shiksha‘Mission ‘ . . i District Dhamdha,Dis‘tri‘ct Educatiqn Durg(C.G) officer BiockEdUcation Dhamdha Block, Officer District Durg (CG) ICLE 226 oi= Ti-iE CONSTiIUTiON d; iNDiA.‘ -. ' 1 ,M/MM warT PETiTioN UNDER ART ”A W ~ .. , brg HEGH CGURT 5F CHHAT?ESG§RH : EILA$PUR WRET' PETiTmN i3} N65$$i2€16§ PE“?ITEGN§§ $haiiei1cii'a Kumar Dani Versus §ES§$N$E ‘E’3 State f CE. and others ('Wrii Petition under Artisie 2’26 0f fhe C‘oristiiutian of india) $ingie Eench: Haru’hie §hri $atish K. Aqniiio‘iri, J. ?réseni: - Shri Anufag Jha, Couiisei farfiie neiitiener. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. GR§L GRBER (Passed an this 25‘“ day of September, 263%) Heard ‘earned counsei for the pariies. (2) Learned counsei appeafing for the petitioner submits that he has noi impugned any pariicuiar oreier, bui iie is aggrieveci by action of the 3iock Eeucation Gfficer. uhamciha as it is contrary to the transfer orn‘er paseeri by the Under Secretary. Schooi Educatien Department. State ef CE. en 30-06-2009 (Annexure Wei). (3) The petitianer submits that the Biock Education Gnicer is not competent to oass such oro‘er, as the transfer oroer has to be made toy the Coitector. (4) {3n query, asto whether there is any document to substantiate his argument, in reply, iearned oounsei tor the petitioner submits that it is not necessary to prottuce any document with regard to procedure of transfer as it is contrary to the titate Govt. order. The petitioner is at iiberty‘ to approach the State Govt. by making a representation that the impugned oraer passed by A.the F‘ uovernment has been iiouteoi. There is no grouna‘ in case oi transfer order i.e. proveoi maiafio‘e, tack of the competence of the authority passing the oroier and breach of provisions, exoept seif-same statement, that the 8iooi< Education Gtficer is not competent. no documents or materiais were produoed in support of the contention. to; !F\ in the resuit, the petition has no merit which is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri " ‘ Judge Tumane r W. ”aw it :i t $42 o