c -r. \° PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHAmSGARH ) W.P. fS) No. -5'S5\_/2011 Prafful Yamraj S/o Pratap Singh Yamraj, aged about 49 years, Head Master Govt. Primary 'School, Village-Dhour, Tahsil- Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS .^^^y-^ '..^•••yi,'o-5v-1,-'""^', ....-•••* ^^3^-"" dat.ed •"' RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throygh- Its ' Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^-2. District Education Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) .3. Block Education Officer, Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RETmONER RESPONDENTS HIGyCOURTOB GyHATTISGARH : BtLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5591 OF 2011 Prafful Yamraj Versus , State of Chhattisgarh & Othere <Writ Petition underArticie 226 ofthe Coretitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 4. Shri Santosh Yadu.Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed onthis21stdayofSeptembsr, 2011) Challenge in this petitjdn is to the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Distrid Education Officer, Durg, whereby, the petitioner working as Headmaster at Primary School Dhour, Biock Patan, has been transfa-red to Primary School Kuagaon, Dondi-Lohara, on administrative grounds. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer poticy dated 13 June 2011 (Annexure P-2), it is cteariy stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees betonging to Class-111 & IV services on proposal made by the other departments in approval ofthe minister in-charge. In the case on hand, it appearelhat the District Education OfRcer, Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Cotlector has been asslgned the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffere from the defect of competence of the ofRcer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainabie in the eyes oflaw. As a result, if the petitioner has aiready not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner, shatl not be given effect to, untit a fresli order is passed by the oompetent authority in public interest and administrative exigency. ^Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. sshok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge