SINGLE BEWCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. ^t^—QF 2011. 5 PETITIONER '< -t. ^\; .^^..^1^?.- 5^bi€^^ '^^^••"" \^^' T. S. Deshmukh, S/o. late Shri Keju Ram Deshmukh, aged about 53 years, Accountant, Subhash Nagar Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^^^. f/^ .Y^\ ^I'U.K^I^ ^ c^ ^u^ T. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Sadanand Sahu, S/o. Not known, Assistant Grade-II, R/o. Risali Sector Bhilai Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg, (C. G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTQe GMHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5612 OF 2011 T.S. Deshmukh Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others QA/rit Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- 4. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. QRDER ssholc (Passed on this 21st day of September, 201 1) Chaltenge in this petition is to the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Durg, whereby, the petitioner working as Accountant at the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Durg, has been transferred to High School Borgaon, on administrative grounds. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that under th^ transfer policy dated 13t June 2011 ^nnexure P-2), itis dearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees betonging to Class-111 & IV services on proposal made by the other departments in approval ofthe minister in-charge. In the case on hand, it appearsthat the/tesistant Commissioner without followsng the guidelin^ issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Collector has been assigned the responsjbility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned distnct, on proposalof the concemed departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainabte in the eyes of law. As a result, if the petttioner h^ already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and administrative exigency. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ^l