‘ i » State of Chhiattisgarh, ENDs_ I: 1. “F %)a5//. Jeevandhar Diwan, éged about _44 years, At Present working ‘a‘t Governm’eht Boys’ ' Higher Secondary School, District Duré (C.G.) VERSUS Bemetara, Through: thé‘hSecretaryV, School Education Debartmerit, D'.K.S‘ Bhawan, Rai'pur'(C.G.). The Director Public instruction, Raipur, District Raip‘ur (C.G.) Educa’tibn District Bemeta‘ra, 'The z District Educatidn Officer, District Durg (C.G.) T Election’ Commissioh of Ihdja, Through : the, Secretary, Nirvachan Sada’n, Ashok Road, ‘ Ne‘wDeIhi ‘ ‘ I The Chief Electroi Officer, I Indiravatl Bhawan Ralpur (C G ) I/‘ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER _As given In the cause title PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS x RSPbENT I ‘ . _ _ (C G) , WRIT PETITION (S) No. [$5 OF 2009 PETITEIONER Basubandhu Diwan, S/o Present :- Shrl P P Sahu Advocate for the petmoner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASU i 1 L ‘ ‘ v (Writ Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constltutlon of lndla) 1 Slngle Bench Hon ble Shrl Satlsh K A nlhotrl J ‘ Shrl Sushll Dubey, Govt Advocate for lthe State . ‘ ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 19th day of J'anuary,’201 1)‘ Heard learned counsel for the parties The petltloner was appomted as Asststant Teacher by the District Education Officer Education Dlstnct Bemetara The petitioner was posted at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Bemetara at the: relevant‘time, when the ‘impugned Iorder dated 2-3-2009 (Arfnexure P/1) transferring theip‘etitioner from Education District Bemetara to the Education Dlstnct Durg, was passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh Department of School Educatlon Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner from Education District Bemetara to the Education District, Durg woUId prejudice and adverseiy affect the service condition of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that looking to the promotionai avenues in the Education District, Bemetara as well as In the Education District Durghwhereto the, ’ petitioner has been transferred the petitioner has been substantially ' affected and prejudiced by this transfer Thus the transfer order Is bad and deserves to be quashed In support of his contention r learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court rendered in Aalekh Kumar Devta VsfState of C.G. and others‘ and ‘ other connected matters, ‘which has been confirmed by the Supreme i Court in SLP (C) No.18773 of 20,05 and Abhishek Kumar Dani v._ State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz. Learned counsel prays that similar benefit may be extended to thexpetitioner. : 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 160 2 WP (S) No 4622 of 2007 (decrded on 14-3-2008) PR : I x 4 WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1865 OF 2009' 1 PETITIONER . Basubandhu Diwan 'Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others ‘ This Court whlle consldenng the transfer from one istrict to other District m case of Gram Sahayak (ASSIstant Gram Panchayat Offlcers) after havmg conSIdered vanous decuswns of the Supreme Court held that the transfer of an employee where the seniority Is maintained at dlstnct Wise If on transfe serVIce condmons are affected Is bad In K Narayanan & others Vs State of Kamataka & others3 th Supreme Court has held as under to other district, his ‘ “Any person entermg the service 'can i 1 : 'justly 'feel ‘secure of equality in s continuance, ‘promotion etc. Any executive action vioiating it cannot be upheld. Seniority is an incident of serVIce which cannot be eroded or curtaiied by a rule which operates discriminately , Eariier aiso several orders have been passed by the respondent authorities Without complying With the prOVi5ions of law as laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Cowt in the aforesaid cases, which has created lot of difficulties and made the employees to approach this Court for relief Therefore it is directed that the State authorities while transferring an employee whose appomtment is made in the District and his seniority is maintained district-Wise, shall look into the matter before transferring to‘ other districts that his ervice conditions would not be prejLidiced in any manner. n iview of the Well-settled principles of law and the reasons entioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned order ated 2-3-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed in respect of the petitioner is uashed With costs quantified to be at ? 10,000/— payable to the petitioner. The amount shall be recovered from the officer concerned, who is responsible in passing the impugned order without taking care f the prOVISions of law and the deCIsmns of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in umpteen number of case I 3A‘iR 1994 SC 55 D e s I m d q o s =