tf-3 !"<!a»( ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.)NO. lf ^ 6 Q /2011 PETITIONER ^> }^^\ / ^^ffM^' ^•^w^ ...-•'M'-O^-.-'' , ^••"^1"0<:"" ^•y.-•••"" ^^" A^' RESPONDENTS Rudra Narayan Sinha S/o Shri R.P. Sinha, Aged about 48 years, Occupation Service, Posted at 0-1-^'..--'' ' \-:'y.--'^Y..--'' Upper Division Teacher R/o 1: 2. 3f 4. 5. ^' Smriti Nagar, Bhilia, District DurgfC.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Smt Bisa Goswami, W/o Shri Manohar Goswami, aged about 45 years, Occupation Service, Posted at Govemment Middle School, Titurdih Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION_OILINDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR A?'v OTHERWRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. r s'-^sssh i 1 siisy;a"| j *ta;s^' ., 'ti%^ ~r.^ xv^- H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRiT PETIT'ON (S) No. 496SOF 2011 ?ET!T!ONER RESPONDENTS Rudra Naravan Sinha Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Othsrs •^ i'Writ Petition under Articie 22S of the Constitution of jndia) Sinsle Ssnch : Hon'bie Shri Satjsh K. Agnihotri. J. Shrl Y.C.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ?ORAL) (Passed on ihts 27'" day of August, 2011) Learned counsei appearing for the petitlon.er submiis that under the transfer poilcy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-3), it te cieariy stated that the Co!lector alone is competenf to transfer the empioyees beionging to Class-Hi & IV services on proposai made by the other departments in approval ofthe minister in-charge. !n the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer without foliowing ihe guideiines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order Impugned, when the Coilector has been assigned resDonsibiiiw of transfer of fhe empiovees working in the concemed district, on proposal of ths concemsd this suffers from the defect of comoefence of the officer. According!y, fhe transfer is unsustainabie in the eyes of iaw. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in resoecS of the Detitioner is guashed. However, iibeny is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, IT so advissti, in accordanee wiih adminlstrative exigency and m pubfic poiicy, in . ?7,-i Jl c--^ .nisni .n/^ lfl;;-~CTk i^»f.*,,- SCCOFQaHCQ W1ZH iSVy, Accordinalv, the wrii Detition is alSowed to the above-extent. No order artments. Thus, asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMORI Judge •aJ^ bi