@ ^ £ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W^P. (S)No. ^663 OF 2011. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / ^•^; ,<•'' -^'Y ^' .•^^'...••••"" ^y/ L. R. Sahu, S/o. late Shri B. R. Sahu, aged about 52 years, Occupation Service, presently working as Accountant, at Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Durg, R/o. Jawahar Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Developinent Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2." The Assistant Cominissioner, Tribal Developinent Branch, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly begs to submit as under: PETmQNER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTQF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) No. 5653 OF 2011 L.R.Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Othere < (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ashok Present:- Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State, ORDER (Passed on this 22"a day of September, 2011) 1. ChaJtenge Jn this petition is to the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Commissjoner, Tribal Wetfare Durg, vvhereby,the petitionerworking as Accountant at the office of A^sistant Commissioner, Tnbal Welfare Durg, has been transferred to Higher Secondary School, Amaduia, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner svbmite that under the transfer pplicy dated 13th June 2011 (Annexure P-3), it is deariy stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees befonging to Class-IiS ft IV semces on proposal made by the other departmentsjn approvat ofthe mjnisterin-charge. 3. fn the case on hand< it appears that the Assistant Commissioner, wjthout foljowing the guidelines issued in the transfer poltey had pg^sed the order impugned, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibiijty of transferof the emplo^es working in the concerned district, on proposaf of the concerned departmerrts. Thus, this suffers from the defe)t of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. As a result, if the petitioner has already not been rejieved, the transfer order dated 15^ Juty, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner, shatl not be given effect to, unti! a fr^h orderis p^ssed by the competent authority in public interest and adminjstratsve exigency. 5. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent, Sd/- .. ...: -tisby ^