\ v \\( \( Wk “ h \ 4;. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6792 of 201 1 55h WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. O R D E R (Passed on 18kg day ofNovember, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.10.2011 (Ahnexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3, so far as the transfer of the petitioner is concemed and to declare the same as null and void, being passed by an incompetent officer. 2. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the earlier occasion, in Writ Petition (S) No. 5617/20 1 1, the order dated 1507.2011 whereby the petitioner, working as Upper division Teacher & Hostel Superintendent at Pre Matric Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Gunderdehi, was transferred to Middle School, Mardel. This Court directed that if the petitioner was not relieved, the said order shall not be given effect to until fresh order is passed by the competent authority in public interest and administrative exigency. The order dated 15.07.2011 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Durg, who is not competent to transfer the petitioner. 3. Again, the same officer i.e. the Assistant Conunissioner, Tribal Welfare, Durg, without having competence, has passed the order . . } , X PETITIONER : C.D.Chaturvedi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 2 - State of Chhattisgarh & Others. dated 29.1 1.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the earlier order dated 04.10.2011 cancelling the transfer of the petitioner, was recalled. _ Contention of learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner was relieved, thus, no effect was given to the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by this Court, on the face of it, is incorrect as if the petitioner was relieved pursuant to the order dated 15.07.201 1, no such order was necessary, as was passed on 29.10.201 l. Thus, it appears that the State is trying to mislead the Court. Firstly, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 was passed by an incompetent officer and thereafter, the subsequent order dated 04.10.201 1, canceling the transfer order, and the impugned order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P/l) recalling the cancellation order dated 04.10.2011, have also been passed by the incompetent officer. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit //