LN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (SJ No. (4*? 6C /201o PETITIONER VERSUS EsmNDENTs : 1. / State of Chhattisgarh 2 ; 3. Through : Secretary, Live Stock Development Department D.K.S.Bhayvan, Raipur (C.G.) The Upper Secretary Live Stock V Development _ D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) LITThe Director Veterinary Services, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) The Deputy Director Veterinary Services Raigarh, District Raigarh (co) 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE K CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most hlifiibly and respectfully begs to submit as under : “0/, ./ (p9 a?” /. RP. Gupta S/o Late Shri Yadav Prasad Gupta, Aged about 50 years, Occupation Working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, In the office of Artificial insemination ‘ Sub Center, Patrapali, District Raigarh (C.G. I Department R J \x‘? HE§H CQU§T OF $HHATT§$G§R§§ Kf BILA$§§JR WQH ?ET§'§§0N g5; NO“ 6750 OF 213m §em§ane¥ R‘P‘Gupta ‘ Ve¥sus State 0f Chhaitisgar'n & Others WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTlTUTiON OF NDIA §SB : Hoa’we Mr. $ati$h K. Agmheiri, J‘) Pmsem :m 8hr» Ajaya Kumar Barak, Advocate for the petitioney. Shri NNRoy, Pane: Lawyer for the Statei respondents. Resam’adeni5 GRDER E$RAU (Paesed on 14‘“ day ef January, 2S1 1) Chanenge in this petit‘mn is to the arder dated 15.7.2010 (Annexwe PA), whereby the petiiioner wae transferred from Ariifio‘sai insemination Sub Center, Patraoatir District Raigarh to Veterinary Dispensary Chandur; District Bijapur, on administrative greunds. The petitioner preferred this petition stating that the impugned erder passed in Juiy, 201 O was bad in iaw, as the petitiener was engaged in the eiection duty and this Court has taken cagnizance of the engagement of the empioyees in eiection work and held that during etection proceedings when an empioyee is engaged in the election work, no transfer wiii be made. The instant petition was initiaiiy dismissed on 24.1 1 .2010 tor want of prosecution. Thereafter, it was restored on 3.12.2010. Onquery asto Whether the eieotion work wherein the petitioner was engaged in the month of July, 2010.. stiii continues, it was fairiy and categoricaiiy stated that etection work is over and the petitioner does not continue to any election duty todayMThe transfer during the eieotton may he , r i , bad, but once the eiection has afi'ready been taken piece, the petitioner may not be permitted to raise the same gmunds, in order to chaklenge, the va!idity of the order, which waS passed during the eiec‘cian period. Needress to mention that after pressing of the petition, the matter was diemieeed for want of prosecution and thereafter, it was restored. in case of transfer after a period of six months, nothing remains for consideration and partiouiariy, in the facts of the instant case, wherein the main ground of chaiienge i.e4 no transfer during election is not avaiiabie to the petitioner today. Seoond oontention or’ the-petitioner that several other petitions are pending, wherein during pendency, states quo has been granted; is aiso not reievant at this guncture, as the eieotion is over and there is no bar or prohibition from transfer of any empioyee from once piece to other piace on administrative exigency and in pubiic interest. For the reasons, mentioned hereinabove, the petition is devoid. of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihott‘i Judge Sdl— ashok k ‘Q‘: