$§ngle §mch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH couaT OF cHHAmseARH A'r BILAsPua (c.5.) w. P. (s) N050 1% of 2011 / PETITIONER ~ : M.D. Bandhar'e, aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Tularam Bandhar‘e, pos’redv as Hand Pump Technician, Public HealTh Engineering Sub—Division, U ..... . . 3. “‘MExecu’rive Engineer, Public Healfh Engineering, Division Durg, Dislric’r— i Durg (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W . ‘ . .c ’‘ . .. W Durg, R/o Ufai, Tahsil & District- . § Durg (6.6.) aaw " VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. f Sfafe of Chhah‘isgarh Through The Secrefary, Public Heal‘l’h Engineering Deparfmen'r, D.K‘S. Bhawan Manfralaya, Raipur (6.6.). 2. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Raipur (6.6. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ‘. B§LASPUR WRH‘ PE'HTION (S3 NO. 5058 OF 2G11 (Wr§t Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Fresent :— Shri Ra’mesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao‘ Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 015‘ day cf September, 201 1) ‘i. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer poiizy dated 13.06201 1, it is cieariy stated that the Coiieotor atone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to Ciass~iii & iV services on proposai made by the other departments in approvai of the minister in-charge. in the case on hand, it appears that the Executive Engineer, Pubiic Heaith Engineering. Division Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed t‘ne order impugned, when the Coliector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingty, the transfer is unsustainabie in the eves of taw. 3. As a result. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-t) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with administrative exigency and in public policy, in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. No order asto costs. Satish K. AgnihOtri Judge h) Sd/—' ashok PETITIONER MD‘ Bandhare Versus REaPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others