— ii«i )- 6^?)0r^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH BILASPUR 5Sl^ WRIT PETITION fServicel N0. OF2009 PETITIONER : />/ .^v^> ^/ •M^ f^^y^ 7 /^ny ^" ^>"Aas' .<^ ^' '..• ^'.f 5y'' ' <^..f ^- RESPONDENTS : ^ ~~~- vf^, ^---P'armeshwar Kumar Jan^e, S/0 t. Shri Kanwal Ram Jangde, aged about 47 yearas, Occupation- Service as Head Master posted at Primary School, Kuhikalan Vikas Khand Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) VERSUS ,(4) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) Under Secretary, School Ettucation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) t ;t..l; i t 1.1; •m [3) District Education Officer, Rajanandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) (4) Vikas Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Vikas Khand Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA. ^.< li-^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR PETITiONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETtTION (S) N0.5612 OF 2009 Parmeshwar Kumar Janade Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench: Ho,"'b!e ShriSatish K. AgRihotri, J. Present ?- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. 6. Arun (Passed on this 29 day of April, 2011) Heard leamedcounselfor the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chatlenge the legatity and validity of the order dated 18/09/2009 (Annexure P/1) by which the representation ofthe petitioner has been reiected which wassubmitted by the petitioner, for cancellation of histransfer order dated 30/06/2009. Learned counsei aopearing for the State submits thatthe petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 1 year and 7 months on account of interim order dated 25/09/2009 granted by this Court. The State/resppndente may be granted tiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsei further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 18/09/2009 (Annexure P/1). Itis accordingtyordered. Sinee no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 18/09/2009 (Annexure P/1) on accouht of the interim order dated 25/09/2009, 'rt is not necessary to go into the legaifty and vaiidity of the impugned order dated 18/09/2009 (Annexure P/1), in the facts ofthe case. in view of the above, sccording to learned counsai appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposedof. No order asto costs. r—-—- j',. Sd/-.: .£Satish K. Agnihotri ~ 'Judge