(/é ) SINGLE BENCH a ’@ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH’ AT BILASPUR W.P.lSl NO. hgl 9r [2011 Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur, Distt.— Raipur (C.G.) Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER / Lal Singh DhruW, S/o Dubey Ram Dhruw, aged about 56 years, R/o Village —Rudri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /': 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Agriculture Department, o D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4),LOW / 2. Director, (f2; Directorate of Agriculture, QR‘. ow” Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director, @ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4517 of2011 WRIT PETHION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.S.Pate1, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 11 day of Auguet, 201 1) beamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide the impugwd order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l ), the petitioner, working as Assistant Land Conservation Ofi'icer at Dhamtari has been transferred to the office of Assistant Director, Agticulture, Rajnandgaon, on administrative grounds. He further submits that in the impugned transfer order, the designation of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned and he has been transferred to a place where no office/post of Assistant Land Conservation Officer is available. Shri Patel next submits that the petitioner is a class ll officer and there is a nrohibition on transfer of class II otiicers under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011. Thus, the same may not be executed. 2. Shri Sao, learned Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that if it is so, appropriate orders considering the aforestated averments shall be passed keeping in View the above infinnities in the impugied order within a period of 15 days. Till then, the impugted order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner shall not be given effect to. 3. In View of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated observation. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihdtri‘ Judge PETITIONER : La] Singh Dhruw. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others.