'-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONISj N0. t^'^W /2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Smt. Anita Rawat W/o Shri Naveen Rawat, Aged about 47 Years, O/o Janpad Panchayat, Gurur, Distt- Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Durg, Distt-Durg, (C.G.) Collector Durg, Distt-Durg (C.G.) Cheif Executive Officer Janapad Panchayat, Gurur Distt. Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^w ,0^fe+^.> b.<?.-^"?"" ^•:^y 3. PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5665 OF 2011 Smt. Anita Rawat RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ^ ashok ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2011) The petitioner impugns the order dated 15th July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the order was not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Collector, in accordance with the policy decision dated 13th June, 2011. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, though the same has been passed bythe Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, District Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after more than two months, thus, the importance of questioning the trarisfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on account of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non-competent officer, has been cancelled. If the transfer order has been complied with, there is no question of reconsidering the validity of the same. However, if it is still not complied with, the same shall not be given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. The transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner, in all matters is not likely to suffer, if the petitioner has already accepted by joining the new place of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. As a result, if the petitioner has already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15th 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 in administrative exigency. Accordingly, the writ petition disposed of. No order asto costs. -bTrboui