KVSW(£) c^ ('30L- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(SUtO. /-1M^' /2006 P:ETITIONER .«^-> : ( Shri L.P. Dewangan, S/0. Shri Rajaram Dewangan, aged about 57 years, R/0. - B.D. Mahant, Upnagar, &<?:'hy:<' ..-••'"" ward No-6' janjgir Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^y ^:.. •<sf'^--"~ »s?u ^' RESPONDENTS l^-.G0?l ^' (€^ fr:;:" ^./^y t' •>-r~/ 0. G^ ,0 v ^. \-^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. : Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Agriculture, Raipur, Distt. : Raipur (C.G.) ,3. Upper Sanchalak Krishi, Sanchalnalaya Krishi, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) -4. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. The Assistant Soil Conversation Officer, Sakti, Distt - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) *s @ '£. HI6H CQURT OF CHHATnS6ARtLATBn.ASPUR Hon'bte Shri Justic®Satish K. Asaihortri WRIT PETETION (S.'S N0. 4994 OF 2001 versus Shri L.P. Dewangan Respondents State of ChhatS-isaarh and others. Present ; i1Ar. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counse! for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay bwivedi, Ponel Lawyer for the State. )th (12Tn 5^tember, 2006) petitioner was initially oppointed on tiie post of Assistant 6rade-m. Thereaf*er, by order dated 27.10.2005, the petitioner was tronsferred froni the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Korba to Deputy Director, Janjgir- Champa. 2. By order dated 14.7.2006, the charge of the petitioner was chcmged in the same capacity in the establishment seetlon. The Additional Director by order dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) questioned the plscement of severa! officers, passed by -2- Assistant Soi! Conservation officer, Sakti (Annexure P-3) and he!d that the order dated 14.7.2006 was not in accordance with the seniority. 3. The or-der dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) was subsequently wi-rtidrawn by the Additional Director of Agriculture on -riie ground tiiat -rtie Additional Director of Agriculture has no power to interfere with tiie functionin9 and placement of the officers from one section to other section within the same office. .4s a result the order dated 17.8.2006 stood cancel!ed and the order dated 14.7.2006 remslned maintained. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition vvithout impugning the order dated 14.7.2006 (Annexure P-3), questionin9 the placement of other employees within the so.me office on * different sections. Though the petitioner has not impugned this order and has impugned the order dated 2.9.2006, whereby the Additional Director cancelled the order dated 17.8.2006, whlch was passed by the Additiona! Director without having the jurisdiction and competence. K Be that as it moy, placement of the employees in different bronches within the department is the power of the Head of the department to post an employee in a particular plccs i.e. -3- Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Sakti, that has not been chcllenged. There is no merit in the case. 6. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Subhflsh