^llyigleBeh^ ^F? v<^; lN^HEHON'BI-EHlGH<^UI^alCMHATTIS<3AR^^ ;-^:tBILA^PUt^.Gy^:l'^^';:.^>':^%:^^^^^ ^iiiiiiMiiiii^.^^^^^^^^^^^^ PiTITIONER wS^'W^S. ^l^^li l^iiiiS'^iii^ie "^<^B^I?''%%f:]^f:^ :^"''%:.'l^;^f..1:' RESPONDEN'E^ ^|F^dhe|lTydni^hanclravarislij^aged i|:t^b^UtgS@^y6are,'^.S/Q^,l':^ate51':i:^^ |%||3M9he^rj|^iTighi^e s|J|l^daMaster|Govem ||jSclioo1%Dlal$l<otola,^JBIIock.^m:^ ||®|^hii^i,liisttjR^rian(dgac)n((3.G.) ,l^;.^^ER^US-l(^li^ ^1i%State^iof|l©hHatt^^ .^l^^ljgj|^|6|r^|^||^checfuled;:^^ sehiedy^^l Departmeritl ililillS ll'ritiei Dev^lopment ).K.S. BlTawan, Raipur 2.^i%%Ttie<^l|ec^OT^ .;:^;;3.!'.i^;?^it"i^^SSJsta,nt 4. ia i District^ Oommissiorier.^rribal Welfare Bepartment, Rajnanclgaon ®ducatioo Officer, Rajnindg£ion|(G.G.) %r WR13^ET!TIONUND6F^R^ CdNSTITUIC^NQFINDIA PETSTIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 5315 OF 2011 Radheshyam Charsdravanshi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227afthe Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Psssed on this 09 day of September, 2011) Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by. the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Rajnandgaon, v^hereby, the petitioner working as Headmaster at Primary Schoo! DakkotoSa attached to Primary SchooliVietepar, Blcx)k r ' • • • ' ' Chouki, has been transferred to Primary Schooi Kalwar, Biock Manpur, on admlnistrative grounds. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 (AnnexureP-2), "rt is ciearly stated that the Coilector alone is competent to transfer the employees beionging to Ciass-lli & IV sen/ices on proposal made by the other departments in approvai of the minister in-charge. in the case on hand, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner without follov^ng the guldeilnes issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Coliector has been assigned the responsibiiity of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposai of the concernea8 departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence ofthe officer. Accordingiy, the transfer is unsustainabie in the eyes of law. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, iiberty is reserved to the govemment to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with administrative exigency and in pubiic poiicy, in accordance with iavv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. Sd/- , _ SatisbK.AS"ibotrl Judge ashok