^ stf."-1 •1>^N ;-^^. Tl^- IN IHE BIGH COUE'I1_ OF_JI?DICA2UgB_A31 BILASFaB_iCHH^TISGARHl te, WRIT PBriIION No. OF 2©0^ ^ PEIITIONER \- ^ _' Manoj Kumar Shufcla, aged about 39 years, ..»'^6^ sonofAlpNarayaQSMuKLa, oecupatioia: .^fth^^ Shiksha Karmi Gr.II, resident of ^''^..^IJQJ.'>°" ..••' Bhatapara, dist.Raipur (C.&) .^' ^••^^•-•""" '^;.-'"' Vs. ^Y:^.; ^^'-' ^<<-igSPGN]D@NTS :- / ^ .< ^/^ ^v1' .\,\"^ ^;.>1. ^^.' 1» State ©fChhattisgariasthrough Secretary^ Panchayat Departmeiit, Raipiar(C.^) / 2.. State of Ghhattisgar^sthrou^i Seeretary, Sehool Eduea-feioia Departraent, Baigi.iT (C.G) ^ 3. Chief ExeeutiTe Offieer,Zilla Panchayat ,Raipur (C.G) /^•. Cnief Sxecutive Officer,Zilla Panchayat, Bilaspur(C.&) ^. Principal,©oTernmentHigher Secondary Sehool, Arjuni, Vikas Khand Baloda Bazar, dist.Raipar (C.G) ''6. Prineipal, GovernaeQt Higher Seeondary School, Lalpur, Tikas Khand Gorela, Dist.Bilaspur (C.G) SmiT PESIIION T3NDSR ^AE'riCLE 226/227 OP THE GONSIITI3TION O? IHDI^ WR!T N0.5795 OF Petltloner Respondents Versus Kumar ShukJa Stats of Chhattjsgarh and others Pr^sent : Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, counsel for the petJtioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Goyerhment Advocate for the State/respondents No.1,2,5 and 6. Mr. Vtrsay Pandey, Advocate appears on behaif of Mr. Arun Sao, counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for rsspondent iMo.3. (Passsd on 28th Day of Februar/, 2007) The petltloner Impugns the order dated 19-08-2004 (P-1), whereunder no objection certlficate granted by order dated 4-6-2004 was stayed. 2. No stay order was granted by thls Court In thls matter. Ths Impugned order dated 19-08-2004 (P-1) might have been glven to. 3. This matter pertalns to transfer of the petitloner, who was v^orking as Shlksha Karmi Grade-11, from Governmsnt Hlgher Secondary School, ArjunS, Block Baloda Bazar, Distrlct Ralpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Lalpur, BlocR Gorela, Distrlct BilasDur. 4. At this point of tlme, thers Is no questlon to examins the vaildlty of the impugned order dated 19-08-2004 (P-1). However, the respondents are at liberty to pass approprlate orders keeping sn view the pubiic Interest and adminlstratlve exigency, without Inslstlng on compijance of the impugned order. ————-—• 5. Wlth the passage of tlme, the v^rit petition has become infructuous. However, if any cause of action arises in future. the petitioner seeks llberty of this Court to make a proper representation before the competent authorities, to whlch iearned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1,2, 5 and 6 has no objectlon. 6. Thys, the writ petltion is dismissed as having become infructyous wlth the above-stated Ilberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopal