SINGLE BENCH _ 1 _ cam; BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'r BILASPUR (C.G.) L, 31.2% w.P.(S) No. W 0f2011 / Hiralal Patodi, S/ o Shri Itwari Ram Patodi, Aged about 52 years, Head Master, Primary School Govt. Boys Primary School, Armurkasa Block Dondi, District Durg (C.G) PETITIONER VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ~ The Secretary Tribal and welfare Department D.K_.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 2. Collector District Durg (C.G.) (/ /"3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal and welfare Department Durg (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Durg (C.G.) v 5 Churaman Singh Bhuarya Head Master Government Girls School (Mahayama)Daundi District Durg (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT O MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. W- ’ R 20 HIGH SOURT OF CHHATTESGARH .' B!LASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (S) No. 4727 OF 2011 PET€TIQNER Hiraiai Patodi Versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18‘“ dey of August, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Welfare Department, Durg, whereby, the petitioner working as Headmaster at Govt. Boys Primary School, Armurkasa, has been transferred to e Govt. Girls School Mahamaya Dondi, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-3), it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to Class—ill & lV services on proposal made by the other departments in approval of the minister in-charge. 3. ln the case on hand, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Collector 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 emcer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 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. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. No order asto costs. Sd/—‘ SATISH K. ANGNH-IORI Judge { amit