^ - ^ ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Divisjon Bench: Appellaht Petitioner Respondents Hon'ble Shri DhirendraJVIJshra, & Hon'bte Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Writ ADpeal No. 100 of 2011 Ram Kawal Sjngh S/o Late Sftaram Singh, aged about 59 years, Occupation Service, posted as Forest Range Officer, Durgkondal, Forest Diviston East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, CG (Petitioner) -Versus- 1. State of CG, through the Secretary, Forest Deparlment, Secretariat DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Divjsion - East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG) 3. Shri G. Ramlal Rao, Forest Range Officer, Bhanupratappur, Forest DJvision East Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG) (Respondents) Present: iVlr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the appellant/petjtioner. Mr. MPS Bhatia, Govt. Advocate for the State. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for respondent No.3. Per Dhirencira Mishra, J ORAL JUDGIVIENT (14tl1March,2011) The appeilant's writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 15.7.2010, whereby he has been transferred from Durgkondal to Forest Division, Kanker has been dismissed by the impugned order of Annexure A/1. 02. Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counset for the appellant, submite that the appellant suffered two transfers within a span of 13 months i.e. in Juty, 2009 and August, 2010 on administrative ground. The appeilant is going to retire within a year in July, 2011. tn that view of the matter afso, he ought to have been transferred at a place of his choice. However, he has been transferred in contravention ofthe transfer policy ofthe State Government in this regard. ^ ... ^s ^,. ^^'^ 03. On the other hand, Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the transfer order has already been givers effect to and respondent No. 3 has aiready joined in place of the petitloner and thus, the instant appeal has become infructuous as the transfer order stands dufy complied with. 04. Shri MPS Bhatia, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State aiso supports the impugned order. 05. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, having perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents appended thereto, and also considering that in the meanwhite, the impugned transfer order has already been glven effect to, which has not been disputed by the appeijant, whereas the appellant is due for retirement onty in the month of July, 2011 , we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in ths impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed at the admission stage iteelf. j Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge b