dq My/K §$5ngk§ %@nezh N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR }f2Z PTITIONER E rhlad umr hore , abou Paa Ka Rat aged t 32 s/o Shr eeva Rathore / years, i Jn ro Vig Hae— SrarPar akaia Pea, ndr Th aasi—l Penra, Dist Bilapu (CG d — sr ..), restly sted as Sis Kari Pen po hkha m Grae 3 a ma School aka a' d t Priry Sit Pra ' a ck dra, laspur Bachawr, Blo- Pen Dist- Bi hhattisga Crh VERSUS RSPONDENTS E 1.h /‘Te Ste at of Chhattig sarh — Thrh- oug Te Seta, Deptment f h ecrry ar o nchat Rural ent DKS wa apur hhattisr ie Executive Offic Jila Pchayat Blapu strict— ils hisgar hef Executiv ff Japad Ci e Oicer, n anchat Penra, Dtri— Bilaspu Pay d isct r hhattsar Cigh lock Educan cer Bc Pedra B tio om, lok n D Bilur C. ist— asp .G ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER A per cau itle s se t PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As be cause tite PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEN IG MADE g I WP (S) No 3/2o11 ff Paay and Devlopme Bhan Ri Cgah Chf er, an isr, Di Bapur Chatth r l V 1' HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PE'I‘ITION (S) No. 4322 of2011 PETITIONER : .Prahalad Kumar Rathore. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn? Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and 4. ORDER ORAL (Pa$sed on 05 day ofAugust, 291 1) 1. At the very outset, ’learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto Whether an employee of one Janpad Panchayat can be transferred to another Janpad Panchayat, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om Prakash v. State of Chhatzisgarh & Others}. Thus, the instant petition may also be disposed ofin the same terms. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the above submission and submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same tenns. 3. In View of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Om Pralmsh (Supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner, is quashed. Sd/— ," ; r Satish K. Agnihotri : j , Judge f 1 WRIT PlETlTlON (S)‘NO.32iié OF 2010, decided on 05.08.2011