te ,^v8s\6w HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.IS) No. 6087 o£2007 PETITIONER D.K. Kaushik Aged ahoirt 41 years S/o N.S. Kaushik Presenfly posted As In chai^e District project Co-Qrdinator, Korba R/o C-32 sector-2 Balco, DKtrict: Korba (C.G.) Vwsus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy Scliool Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. State of Chliattisgarh Through : Secretary Tribal WeHare Departmcnt D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission State Project OfRce, Raipiir District; Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri Diaesh Jha S/o not Know by petitioner Piuject Director Bal Shramik Asharain Aiabikapur (C.G.) WRITPlB'miON UNDBRARTICLE 226 OF TWE CONSTITmQN OF IHDIA Appearance: Shri Sandeep Dubey, couasel for fhe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwwedi, Panel Laroyer for the State on advance copy. OilALORDER (10.10.2007) SUHIL KinUAR 8IKHA. J. Heard oo admission. By way of this Writ Petition fi1ed iinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orrter dated 21.9.2007 (Annewin:-P/4), so far as it relates to respondent No.4, by which, respondent No.4, who is working as Project Director, Bal Shramik Asharain, Ainbikapur, has becn transferred to Zila Pariyozna Samanv^rak, Rajcev Gandhi Sbjtesha Mission, Korba on deputation on adTuinistrat-we grounds. Lcamed counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat tlie petitioncr holds the substantiwe post of Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Balco and hc was holding the additiona) chai^e of fhe post of District Project Co-onlinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha WP(S) 6087 of 2007 "s va.Va Mission, Korba where respoadent No.4 is being brought. on dcplitation, fherefore, fhe order is aflr-cting fhf petitioner. I have consxlered the point raised by t.he leamed counsel for fhe petitioner. Tn fact, the petitioner is working on the substantwe post of Principal, Govt. Higher Secondaiy School, Balco and he was holding additional chai^e of District. Project Co-oidjnator by orier dated 9.3.2006, a.s nobody was posted on the said post. But this tiiae when a frcsh person is being brought on deputation on the aaid post, and tlie substantive stat.us of tlie petitioner is not being affected, wtuch he was holding earlier to handiag over the additional charge to taim then subsequenfly he would have no locus siandi for challenging such deputatk>n. There is no substantial loss or loss accorrfing to 1ien of tlie petitioner. In 'lact, the petitioner has chaUenged th.e deputation of respondent No. 4 on the post ofwluch he was liolding thfi additional chaays. In the facts and circumstences of tlie case, I ain not iiiclined to interfere wifh fhe order in this writ petition. The petition has no incrits, the saine is Uahte to be disinissed and it is accordinglydisinissec). -—— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge