'f IN THE HIGH COUga'.OE' CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR ssBgi'i'.^nnQ ^No.2-S^e/20(^ PETITIONER /^ v~ r^ ')AC^/i^ / ,^^/ .^F ey^y ^^ .'»' RESPONDENTS ySmt. Madhuri Yadav, W/o. Shri S.N. Yadav, Aged about 42 years, Occupatioji- Service (Accountant) R/p. Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS l/ State bf Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary 8s Ministry, Departmentof Home, S.C. 85 S.T. Development Department, D.K.S. Bh^ari, Raipiir (C.G.) The Collector, Bastar, District JagdalpurfG.G.) The Assistant ;.Commissi6ner, Tnbal J>evelopment Department, Jagdalpur, E)istt.Jagdalpui-(C.C}.) Block Education Officer, T.D. Block Bakawand, District Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Ttie Principal, Boys Higher Secondary School, Konda Gadn, Bastar(e.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER Am'iei|^226/227 QKTHE CONSTFTUTION OF IN@IA i 1. PARTICUALRS OP THE PETTCQJNE^ I As inentioned above in the ieause tifcle. ^ ifsr '/ ^l^ ^ pr^/ :wa B& TS^t^'" HIGHCOURT OF CHHAmSOARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K.AQyjHOTRLJ, WRIT PETITION N0.2828 OF 2008 Petitioner Respondents Versus Smt. Madhuri Yadav State of Chhattisgarti and others Pi^ent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. O^DER (Passed on 28th Day of Febmary, 2007) The petittoner white worlang as Aecountant in Block iducation OfRce, Lohandiguda was ordered to be transferred to Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kondagaon, 'nde order dated 13-08-2004 (P-1), but thereafter, modlfying th®said transfer order, the petitioner has been transferred from Biock Educatton Offiee, Lohandiguda to Biock Education Office, Bakawand, vide order dated 14-10-2004 (P-2). The petitioner tmpugns both $he transfer orders dated 13-08-2004 (P-1) and 14-10-2004 (P-2). 2. This Court, videinterim order dated 24-08-2005,granted stay of the transfer orders dated 13.08-2004 (P-1) and 14-10-2004 (P- 2), titl the next date of hearing, and the petitioner was perfnitted to join at the original piace of posting lill any other order is passed to post the petitioner at appropriate place. jf0!?-^ 3. With the passage of time, the writ petifion has beeome infructuous, to which leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents has no objection. 4. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Noorderastocosts. - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge