^ l e @i.;Mfti.: .s.s I'i.'crai/n; BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. $'[°3 /2011 PETITIONER AVV^ .*• ,^k^.>"(\.--"" / ^ ..'"'/-1-"/i &-Y-"' . :.>a%w^' ^••\..-^nff\-''' ^p- ..f-'' ^...•-""" Vijay Meshram S/o Shri Motiram Meashram, aged about 47 years, Head Master Primary School, Govt. - Sanginkachhar, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. "" StateofChhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Schoo] Education Department, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur JC.G.) 2. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. '^District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. iiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR WR!TPtTiTiQN_?S) !Mo. 5103 OF 2011 •'^'1 PETIT1GNER ^.^•i.'t-i? ^<i.-*\?" ^. ^^ n.t"i~i. < ^ tfl .'*^?*< y^ ff, Vysiy fVi^^rissiis' RESPONDENTS versus State of Chhattisoarh & Others fvVrit Petiiion under Article 228 of the Constitution of Ini Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ar.up Majumdar, Advocate for the petiSIonsr. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei La'vyer for the State. ORDER ('ORAL') ^ \\^f~\r\^._f_ (Psssed on thls 02"" day of September, 2011) Lesrned counsel appearing for the pet'rtioner submits that under the transfer Doilcv dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is clearlv stated that the Collector aione is competent to transfer the employees beionglnu to CJass-iSI Si IV seroices on Drooosal made by the other deDartments in aDorovai of tne minister in-charge. in the cass on hand, it aDDears thst the District Education Officer •vvithout folJowing the guideiines issued in the transfer pollcy had passsd the order imDuaned, wnsn the Coilector has 'oeen assianed the responsibilft/ o? transfsr of the empioyees working in the hUS, CQncerned district, on proposai oft'ne concerned departmenfs. this suftei's from the defect of competence of the off'cer. Accordingiy, tho trsnsf^r is Ui'isijstsirisbi^ In ths QV®Sof Isvv. As a resu!t. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 s'Annexure P-1) in resgect. of the petitioner is quashed. Hov/ever, iiberty is reserved to the aovemment to oass an uDoropriate order. if so advised, in sccoraance with administrative exigency and in pubiic poiicy, in aCCOi'GSHCS VyitH ISW. Accordinglv, the v/rit Detition is s!iowed to t'ne above-extent. No order Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^