IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^ AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. '^ ^^tf)f 2008 PETITIONER ,^): .. \^' ,••• <i<^y/ .y RESPONDENTS ^^ <•°»{• ^^ t-».'i'. •" 1/1 ^\^y ^'^> ^^' ^ ^•> Smt. Durgeshwari Sharma W/o Shri Shyamanand Sharma, aged about 52 years, occupation service- Principal , Govemment Higher Secondary School, Kududand, Bilaspur , resident of Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). Versus : A • The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary , School Education Departinent, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (CG). 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). ,3. The District Education Officer, BUaspur, Disti-ict Bilaspur (CG). IN4\"^ s-2<^^ 3L WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OFTHE PETITIONER: As stated in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As stated in tfae cause title above. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE. t'tt" ^^° ,<? A li •!iiBiBa^ ^ '%O^Jf •:%iiaES' ^ E-SiftM Os^TiTf^M^I ~fS» E S 6 S'^ii'^ito! ^^^r /^MUATTId ^•O.a.^i.i.. i j^ (HOR. Mr.Ju; lA^rif- t ff^g giL r „ 'rifinker hin 11 VS-t i^ F^! £^^<t"^f"»^lft f/T^^F C<> ^'r^ r'p9^nt il. UUt y^&E IVVCSt i OiifiiESid. State of Chhattissarh and others. /]& Shri Rlshi Rahul Soni counsef for the petitioner. Ku. Sunita Jain PL forthe respondents/State. t«fl r«uer With the consent of the counsei for the parties, the matter is heard ^t i^.--! t h .* un<^HV. ^T Chalienge in the instant petition is to the order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 whereby modifying the ordsr a'ated 16.6.2008 (Annexure P-2) which has already been carried out by ths petitioner, the petitioner has been again transferred to Government Hlgher Secondary School, Chakarbhata (Camp) Biiaspur from Government Higher Secondsry School, Kududand, Bilaspur, in vioiation of the transfer policy. This petition was filed on 9.7.2008 and the stay vvas granted in ravour of the pstitioner vide order dated 14.7.2008. Contention of the counsei for the parties is that this Court may quash the impugned transfer order by giving iiberty to the respondents to pass fresh order ir' administrative exigency so warrants. !n view of the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties and looking to the fact that the pefition was flled on 9.7.2008 and stay v»'as granted in favour of ths petitioner vide order dated 14.7.2008, the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 so far as it reiates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be free fo pass the order afresh if administrstive exigency necessitates'the same. With the aroresaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker