HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DivisionBench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kum.ar Sinha SB Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Appeal No. 308 of 2009 Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Pyare Sahu, aged about 49 years, Occupation Ser^ice, Resident of Premnagar, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Awar Sachiv, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur.(C.G.) 3. The Collector, District Surguja 4. The District Education Officer, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Writ Appeal under Section 211} ofthe Hjgh Cpurt of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Benchl Act, 2006) Appearance : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the appellant/ petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General, for the State on advance copy. ORDER (27.10.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard on admission. (2) Appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 6th of October, 2009 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5713/2009, by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Appellant/petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer, was transferred from Govt. High School, Bhagwanpur, Tahsil Premnagar, District Surguja (>3'^ Writ Appeal No. 308 of 2009 to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Vijaynagar, District Ramanujganj, Ambikapur by order dated 29th of June, 2009. He filed a writ petition against the said order which was registered as W.P.(S) 3580/2009. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge obser^ed as under:- "From the documents as file'd by the petitioner, it is apparent that vide order dated 2.3.2009, the petitioner was locally shifted and thus his ground of frequent transfer has no substance. So far as the other grounds as raised by the petitioner are concerned, it is settled legal position that the transfer is an incidence of servrice and the employee cannot claim his posting in a particular place for ever. I fmd no substance in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself.?? The said order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3580/2009 was challenged by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 238/2009 and the said writ appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench. When the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 31.7.2009, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for permission to withdraw the writ appeal with a liberty to the appellant to file representation before the concerned authority against his transfer order and the same may be decided by such authority in accordance with law. In light of the said submission, the Division Bench passed the following order:- <(In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case, the applicant files representation before the concerned authorities against his transfer order within a period of 2 weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with law within a further period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation/' 'M'1 ^ *KI,j ^^3sy ''y^s^^- Writ Appeal No. 308 of 2009 - Thereafter, a representation (Annexure-A/5) was filed by the appellant and the same was dismissed by order dated 11.9.2009. The appellant again filed a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal of the representation as also the transfer order. The learned Single Judge took the view that since the order of the Single Judge in earlier Writ Petition (S) No. 3580/2009 has become final, therefore, it was not possible for Govt. authority to take contrary view when the judicial order was in existence. The learned Single Judge further observred that the learned Division Bench has not considered the matter on merit in appeal as the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the same order which had already been the subject matter of the writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3580/2009. (4) A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench would show that it has never set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the earlier writ petition. Therefore, that order had attained finality. Moreover, after passing of the order by the Division Bench, the representation was entertained and the authorities of the State, in all their wisdom, have dismissed the representation. (5) Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. (6) We do not find any reason to interfere with the order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the rnotion stage itself. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge vatti