c -^ /^^7. 1 k m IEI IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PEnTlQNBR .^-^ \vs%^ RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) No;^66&>f2010 ' Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, Age 39 year S/o Shri Harivansh Chaturvedi Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat-Berla District-Durg (C.G.) R/o Janpad Panchat Campus Beria District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat 8s Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Developinent Commissioner, Panchayat 85 Rural Development Department, Civil Line Raipur t/' • . 3. The Upper Secretary, Department of Panchayat 8s Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 PARTICULARS OF^EHEJEETN<IQNE& k'- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3668 OF 2010 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi 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 J.N. Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy.Adv. General for the State. Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the intervener - Rupesh Kumar Pandey. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 21st day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 12-7-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereunder the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Berla, District Durg to the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balouda, District Janjgir- Champa and one Rupesh Kumar Pandey was directed to be posted as Chief Executrve Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Berla, District Durg, on revocation of his suspension. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition without impleading Rupesh Kumar Pandey as party/respondent, as by stay/quashing of the impugned order the only person who would be effected is Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Without impleading the relevant party, it appears, on misleading the Court, the petitioner obtained status quo order in ^ respect of his placement. The interim order i.e. status quo was passed by this Court, it appears, on misrepresentation of the petitioner, as the petitioner did not implead Rupesh Kumar Pandey as a necessary party, who was directly aggrieved by the interim order passed by this Court. Gowri I'.i! 2 Looking into the conduct of the petitioner, the interim order dated 22-7-2010 cannot be allowed to continue, thus the same is vacated. At this stage, the petitioner makes an application (I.A.No.4) on 14-1-2011 to implead one intervener as party/respondent No.4. This application is rejected, as no one can be impleaded as respondent in the name of 'intervener'. The concerned person, who is to be impleaded and who is likely to be effected by the transfer order, has not been named in the application. Thus, the apphcation is rejected, as a consequence the writ petition is dismissed on the grounds aforestated and for want of non-Joinder of necessary person as party/respondent. ___- \ ^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge