^ c^- i*'2-. IN THE HON'BLE HI(?H COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AJ BILASPUR w.p. rs) NO. "'I yyl—- / 2011 Petitioner Rakesh Kumar Patet, S/o Shri Ruplal Patel, aged about 30 years,, Secretory (Panchayat Karmi) Gram Panchayat Pandhi, Janpad Panchayat -Masturi, INstt. B»laspur-(C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 3. A^9!.- ^)cy.7.^ 3. w ^" .'< 4,>- >y ^'"y State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.&.) Chief Executive Officer, bistrict Panchayat Bilalaspur, Distt. Bifaspur- (C.G.) District Panchayat Bilaspur, Through - Its Chief Executive Officer 4. Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) WRIT PETCTION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OFINbIA Amit ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 4882 of2011 Rakesh Kumar Patel. RE8PQNDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INTDIA SBjHon'bleSJmSatishK.Asmhotn^^^ Prcsent: Shi'i A.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri AmnSao^ Goveniiiient Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 25m day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) by which, the petitioner, vvorking as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Pandhi, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, has been transfeired to Gi'am Paiichayat Karwa, Janpad Panchayat, Kota, on administrative gt'ounds. 2. At the verv' outset, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue mvolved in this petition is asto whether an employee of one Janpad Panchayat can be transferred to another Janpad Panchayaf, without its consent. The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in Om Prakash v. State of Chhattisgarh & Other^, wherein it was held that an employee of one Panchayat camiot be transferred to othei' Panchayat without a^eement/consent ofthe Panchayat and employee. Thus, the instant petition may also be disposed ofin the same terms. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State does not conti-overt the above submission and submits that this petition may also be disposed ofin the same teniis. 4. In view ofthe submission made by leamed counsel appeariiig for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin terms ofthe order passed in Om Prakash (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Aimexure P/l) m respect oftbe petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 WRIT PETmON (S) N0.3236 OF 2010, dedded on 05.08.2011