' ^-^'^ .........^ss?^ ^^•^^f^^-" y- y^s ^-'" C^^y^l^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S) No. ^S <^ 7 /2008 ^ PETITIQNERS 2] Lokchand Wasnik S/o. Chatur Singh Wasnik, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Chantapara, Bilaspur J:CG) Waquar Ahmed S/o. Late Shri Mohammed Yasin, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Kasturba Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] ft^ ^' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Rural Industries C^ . \vu Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, ,<° ^\s^ District Raipur (CG) Director, Rural Industries Directorate (Sericulture Sector) Sonakhan Building, Raipur District Raipur (CG) 3] Shri Dharamlal Kaushik, Mahamantri, Ruling Party (B.J.P.), R/o. Village Parsada, District Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTIQN QF INDIA JTT ^^ \Gv ^ HIGH OF AT (Hon. MT. Justice Prltinker Diwaieer) Wrst (S) No. 3.567 of 2008 Lokchand Wasnlk and another. ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattlsgarh and others. Shri Manoj Paranjape counsei for the petltioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj GA for the respondsnts/State. Shri VEnod Deshmukh counsel for respondent No.3 ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTSTUTION OF INDIA ORDER (08.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard flnaiiy. Chaijenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 30.6.2008 (Annexure P-1 $ passed by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner No.1 was transferred from the office of Research and Training BIJaspur to the Office of Deputy Director (Resham) Jagdalpur whereas petitioner No.2 was transferred from the office of Research and Tralning BiSaspur to the office of Deputy Director (Resham) Amblkapur, in violatjon of the transfer policy. Thls petitlon was filed on 7.7.2008 and the stay was granted In favour of the petltloners vide order dated 31.7.2008. Contention of the counsel for the parties Is that thls Court may quash the impugned transfer order by giving Eiberty to the respondents to pass fresh order If admlnistrative exigency so warrants. in viev^ of the submjssions of the counsel for the respective parties and iooking to the fact that the petltion was fjied on 7.7.2008 and stay was granted in favour of the petJtioner vide order dated 31.7.2008, the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 so far as it rejates to the petltloners is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shaii be free to pass the order afresh if adminlstratjve exlgency rfecessltates the same. 1 VVIth the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dlsposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ,^i