<.—' -^,^- <^^'(®T isiiti v. R—^s'y ^le'^irf^^" U'^,^^'ii ^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH -=7(%/ W.P. N0.<5^ /2006 PETITIONER .-\ft4 A^ ^..••:y>y ..•••' l^/jn7 / ^¥ ,'sl .•••'^^ ^•'-^''^ 'V' RESPONDENTS ^ Kuldeep Yaduraj, S/o Dr. A.D. Yaduraj, aged about 32 years, being Karya Sahayak (Pariksha Vibhag) Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur, Distt. -Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Guru Ghasidas University, Though - It's Registrar, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^2. Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261 OF CONST1TUTION OF INDIA The petitioner submits as under :- ^•"-—.— SW^X'v'Ws^shMMit HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Si No. 7121 of2006 PetUioner: KiildeepYaduraj Veraus Respoiidents; Guru Ghasidas University & another Siflj^e Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri. Shri H. M. Sholapiirlcar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivasteva, Advocate for the Respondents. /s ORDBR (Passed on this 16*h day of.Janiiaiy, 2007) The followiag oider offhe Court is passed by Satish K. AgpUiotrl, J. 1. The petitioner, who was posted as OflSce Assistaat with the rcspondent/University in the Examination Section, was dirccted to work ia fhe Physical Education Section vide order dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P/1). 2. The petitioaer has filcd fhis transfer petition on the ground fhat there was a ban during the etection. process aad the alleged tisua.sfer is con.trsay to the Election. Guidelin.es Book, 2004 (Pl'tf'l'l f^r?T-^Rll<t>l 2004 ), as ctause 20 of the said book protubits transfer of any employee/ofiBcer working in govemment department, corporattons, boanls or any other institutioa of the Stste Govemment. The. election was concliided on 4th necemher, 2006. 3. On perusing ffae records it is apparent that the order dated 22.11.2006 is aot a transfer order but it is a placement wifhia the Uiuversily Irom one section to other section, Owiag to the said orier fhe petitioner was not required to shift his residence fiom one place to other place, causing prejudice to him, when he was involved in the election process. 4. Be fhat as it may, fhe present case is not a case of transfer as contemplated in fhe Book, 2004 for thc ban whUe election process was going on. Thus ttus petition deserves to be and is dismissed suirunarily. No order as to costs. - — Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agsiihotti Judge _1