XJOO b CD BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CO) WRIT PETITION [s1 NO. 5496 OF 20M} PETITIONER / Dayanand Behra, S/o Late Shri Bihari Behra, Aged about 59 years, R/o Tiurpara, Ward NO. 8, Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. 3/ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1} State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C G “g’M $WA \ ....... RZZearfiéleétfr Raigarh, District— “$5 §ae¢ 3]Block Education Officer, Tribal Welfare, Block — Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5496 OF 2011 PETITIONER Dayanand Behra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 23'a day of September, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, whereby the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 15.07.2011, the petitioner has been transferred from Middle School Tejpur, Block Dharamjaigarh to Middle School Jhingol, Block Tamnar. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner was relieved from the earlier place of posting and joined the new place of posting, as is evident from letter dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-3). However, all of a sudden, by the impugned order dated 05.08.2011, the transfer of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the same has been issued against the transfer policy of the State Government, whereunder all the transfers in respect of the Class-l and ii officers were prohibited. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of law. In fact, the transfer order has been passed by the Collector, only after obtaining approval from the minister—in-charge. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.08.2011 may be quashed. Shri Bhaduri, further submits that it is well settled proposition of law that once the order has m been complied, the same cannot be cancelled or modified. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, submits that since the State Government had cancelled all the transfer orders in relation to the Head Masters who have been declared as class ii officers. Thus, consequential effect was cancellation of order dated 15‘“ July, 2011 of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is bound to join at his original place of posting i.e. Middle School Tejpur, Block Dharamjaigarh. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and xxx. documents appended thereto. (I; 2 zK It is an admitted position that in the circular dated 13.06.201 1, there was strict ban on transfer of the class I and class ll afficers. The Head Masters; being class ll officers could not have been transferred. Even though, they were transferred vide order dated 15.07201 1. The petitioner complied with the said order and joined at Middle School. Jhingol, Block Tamnar. However, when it was realized by the state authorities that even after ban, the class ll officers were transferred, the State Government, vide order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P/1) declared all such transfers as void ab initio. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders, impugned herein. Once the transfer orders have been declared void ab initio, the petitioner has to resume his duties at the original place of posting i.e. at Middle School, Tejpur. Block Dharamjaigarh. ln the instant case. the transfers, as aforestated, have been declared void ab initio and the same have been cancelled. lt is not a case where transferrof any individual employee has been cancelled, but all the orders which were in contravention of the transfer policy, have been cancelled. When the transfer order itself was not in accordance with law, the same cannot be allowed to be continued. dismissed, Sd/— SATISH K. ANGN'IHORI Judge ashok ln view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly