singgaa 59m C S/ ‘ [OG '1, (a IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) K WRIT PET1T10N(S) No. gm 9/201 1. PETITIONER: / Doman Lal Sahu, son of Late Halal Khor Sahu, aged about 46 years, working as Peon, residence of village and Post Aachoud, Police Station Ranchirai, District Durg, ‘1 Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents /‘ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. /2. District Education Ofiicer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. /3. Block Education Oflicer, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /é HIGH C01 ERT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI 1R WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6239 0f 2011 PETITIONER t Doman L211 Sahu VE R $1 is RESPONDENTS : State 0f Chhamsgarh & Others. W'RIT PE’I‘I'l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF lHh CON S'ITI'U'l'ION OF 1NDIA SB: Hon’h'le Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shn' C.J.K.Ra0 with Shri Om P. Sahu. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer For lha Stale/respondants. ORDER ORAL) (Passed on 19’ day ofOctober, 2011) The petitioner impugm the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). whegeby, the petitioner. working as Peer; at Middle School. Jamgaon R. (Pawn). has beea transferred to Middle School. Dhanora, Durg, on the ground that the same was not passed by a. competent authority Le. the Collector. in accordance with the policy decision dated 13.06.201 1. 2. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector. though the same has been passed by the District Edttcation Ohicer, Durg. The petitioner has ehosen to approach this Court after more than three months: thus. the importance of questioning the transfer order does not survive. as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on account ofthe fact that in some oases, the transfer order issued by non~competent ohieer. has been cancelled. Ifthe transfer order has been complied with there is no question of reconsidering the validity ofthe same. 3. Transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner: in all matters is not likely to suffer: if the petitioner has already accepted by Joining the new place ofposting. Thus. at this stage. it is not proper to examine the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. 4. If the petitioner has already not been relieved. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner. shall not. be given effect. to. until a hesh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and in administrative eXigencv. 5. Accordingly. the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNEIORI Judge