IN T.E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS w.P.No.’E§Ef% £2003 é/ Jan S/o R/o Blo PETITIONER ak Ram Maheshwari Late E.R. Makeshwari, Aged about 34 years, ck Office, Korba Kashi Nagar, District Korba (CG) . Versus a NDENT S 1) REsp State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D16Bhawan, Ra’ipur (CG). The Commissioner, 2) 3) WRIT EETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22 INDIA 1) c‘fyejf/ @) Tribal Wel£are Department, Chhatti sgarh—Raipur (CG) . Block Education o££icer, Block Korba,Distt.Korba CG) . THE CONETITUTION OF OF GARH AT BILASPUR > ~ .A ,.A;~ummg‘—‘ ‘ n“ XI—HC—22 3am,mmm,?aamgt m mm. Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Sunila Jain, for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate far the State! respondents. Arguments heard. Order dictated as foiicw%i: pgm. ORDER By way of this writ peti ion tiled under Article 22$l227 of the Constitution of india, the pe ioner has chaiienged the iegaiity of transfer order dated 05.9.2003 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner who was working as an Assista t Teacher in Primary Schooi, Kohdiya, Block Korba, Distt, Korba was transferred from the said inetitution to Middle School Batati, Block ba, Distt. Korba. lt is showri in the order of transfer that the afo esaid transfer was on administrative ground. The petitioner has c allenged the validity of the aforesaid order on the ground that there s no middle school in village Batati‘ as has been shown in Column N .3 of the aforesaid order relating to the petitioner. He also challenge the order onthe ground that since there is no middle school, the uestion of true administrative exigency does not arise and the action n the part of the State appears to be male-tide. Return has been filed o behalf of the State. in sub-para 2 of para 2 of the return, it has he n specifically admitted that there is no middie schooi at Batati i.e. the place where the petitioner‘s r , ” a? 200$ m mm mm WW mammafga WW§WW $eaf$mm 25.9.2096 XI—HC—22 g. transferred vide order dated 05.3.2003. It has further been stated that there is only a primary schoo! at Batatr. The State has pieaded that due to some error it hae been mentioned in the impugned order as middle schooi, Batati, Black Korba, Distt. Korba. However, vide sub- para 3 of this paragraph, it has aeen specit'icaliy stated that though the petitioner was reiieved from primary schooi, Kohdiya but subsequently vide order dated 09.1 .2004 passed by respondent m3, the petitiener was directed to work at Primary Schooi Kohdiya it self and aecordingly, the petitioner has .oined his duty in Kohdiya school. With the above specit’rc pleadings, the State has also prayed for dismissal of the petition in view of the changed circumstance. A copy of the order dated 09.1.2004 (Annexure R—4) by which the petitioner was again sent to primary school, Kohdiya has also been fried by the State. uent development in this matter, it appears that the initial 0r of the transfer has virtually been cancelled by the State by reali ing the mistake that there is no middle school at village Batati and there appears to be no grievance so far as the petitioner is concern d. ln View of the above, fo the present, this petition is disposed of as the grievance raised by th petitioner has been redressed by the State by passing a subsequen order dated 09.1. .2004 (Annexure R-4). However, the petitioner shall at liberty to approach this Court if any grievance pertaining to the impugned order (Annexure P—1) still remains with him in future. Sunil Kurnar Sinha y Judge wig GIG?” l. In View of the subse C.C. as per rules. . d n