HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Wrjt Petttjon (S»No.4860 of 2007 PETITIONER Subhash Chaudra Pradhaa, s/o Sri Markand Pradhan, aged about 61 years, Head Master, Prunaiy School, Arjunda, Block SaraipaU, District MahasaBiund(CG) Versus 1 CoUector, District Mahasamund .(GG) 2 Distnct Education Officer, Mahasam.und(CG) Writ Petttiou ander Aiticle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearaace: Shri K.A. Ansan, Sr. Advocate witti Shri Imtiyaz AIi, counsel for fhe petitioner. Ms. Deepaii Pandey, Paael Lawyer for the State/respondents on advaace copy. ORALORDER (27.08.2007) ^L Heard. The petitioner, who is worldng on fhe post of Head Master, Prunary School Arjunda, SaraipaU, has challenged fhe vaMdity ofhis ta-ansfer order dated 21.7.2007, by which, he has been transferred fi-om. fhe said place to Prtmary School Koiiiakhan, Bagbahra(Annexure P-1). Leamed Senior Advocate appearing on behatf of the petitioner argues fhat titie petitioner is a permanent resident of viBage Kisdi, which is very nearer to Arjunda aad on fhis ground only, oa bis own request, he was posted at Arjunda in the year 2005. Referring to para 6.2. offhe petition, he submits that date of birth of fhe petitioner is 14.10. 1946, according to which, the petitioner has to retire on 30.10.2008. He furfher subinits fhat according to Clause 7 of fhe transfer policy dated 13th June 2007, if a person is to retire wifhin a period of one year, his case shall be goverued by fhe said clause of the policy. W.P.No.4860/2007 ^ He submits fhat accordiug to the said date, a period ofabout 13 months is left for retirement of fhe petitioner and lookmg to Clause 7 of fhe traasfer policy dated 13th Jiine 2007, the case of fhe petitioner should be considered on that liae, fhough one inonfh is exceediag froin one year. I have gone through the contents offhe petition and have also gone fhrough Clause 7 offhe traasfer policy. Haviag heard learaed counsel for the petitioner, having ^one fhrough the contents of writ petition and fhe contents of Clause 7 of the transfer policy, though one inonfh is exceediu; froia one year, in the opiaion offhis Court, the ends ofjustice would be served, if the petitioner is directed to file a representation before the concemed authority aad fhe concemed aufhority to dispose off fhe saine withia fhe stipulated period graated by fhis Court, keepiag in. niind that only one m.0ufh is exceediag froin the tune-fraine niade ia fhe Policy. Accordingly, fhe petition is disposed of wifh. a direction that if so advised, fhe petitioner inay file a detailed representation before the concenied authority withia a period of 3 weeks from today along with copy of this order and a copy of writ petition, raisiaghis grievaace and if such a representation is filed, fhe concemed aufhority shaU. dispose of fhe same as early as possible prefeiably wifhin a period of two monffas Irom fb.e date of receipt of fhe said representation, keepijag ia inind fhe provisions of Clause 7 of the said PoUcy, and very litfle time coTnmg over the period stipulated in^ fhe policy. It is further directed fhat ia the laeaawhUe, fhe petitioner shaB not be reUeved froin his present place of postiag i.e. Arjunda aud shatl be allowed to continue fhere. The petition staads finaUy disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita