:ar:, , f iaMiatt? ogiiGi CPfvo. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONtS) N0.5'^ Q>7 OF 2006 PETITIONER. ./' ^-^9 CM/(^ ,'s- <^^^ ^^-•" ^^' ^'"^^1^" VERSUS ^•L '^^•-FiESPONDENTiS): V <y''/ Makhan Lal Dhruv, Aged About- 42 Years, S/o- Shri Milan Singh Dhruv, Occupation- Service (Assistant Teacher), R/o- Village- Boeirgaon Post-Marauda, Distt.-Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh * Through it's Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Under Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^ ^ it ^ WRIT PETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ,l\l ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ^>l APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS 1 -O-' CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION 1 ORDER IN THE LIKE P^(J /- A^ u^'_ NATURE. {} HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitic.D. (S) No. 5237 of2006 Petitioner: Versiis Makhaa Lal Dhniv State ofChbattisgai-h & aaother Seach: Hoalile Mr, Justice Satish K. Agalhotri. Shri Viliay Paudey, Aclvocate for tlie petitioaer, Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for tbe Respondents. ORDER ( 4th October, 2006) TIie following order ofthe Court is passed by K. Agtlhotri, J. 1. The petitioner, wbo was employed as Assistant Teacher and was working at Sank'iil Kendra BhaiTigaon Boigaon, was transfeiTed vide orier dated 18.8,2006 (Annexiirc P,/1) to the ofBce of the District Ediication Officer, Raigarh. Leamed coiinsel for t3ie petitioner subniite that the pRtitioncr has been shown to have 1oeen traBsfei-red on his own request, whereas the petitioner has not niade such. re-q^iest. at any point oftiaie. At this stage leanied coiinsel for the petitioner coafines his siibmission to a diicction to tiie respondents/ aufhorities for considering the representation (Annexure P / 2). 2. I have heari learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition and annexures appendcd thereto. The iinpugned transfer order seeras to be a noiitnie transfcr on adiainistrative exigency. If. is -weU established principle of law that tbe Court should refrain. froin interfering wifli the transfer oixter which is passed in public r ^^ interest as well as administiative exigency. Thjs Court can interfere onty ui the case of proved malafide, non-coinpetence of autbority passing tbe transfer order and transfer orier is passed contraiy to the statirtoiy niles, regulations, cu'cia.lar etc. It is not a case where ajiy of the grounds, as sfated above, has been alleged by the petitioner. Th'iis, tbere is no merit in tlie case. 3. In view ofthe foregoing, tbe petition is dism.issed. However, in the facts and circumstaiices of the case, the respondent No.2 is du-ected to coTisider gnd decirte the pendmg spplication (Annexiire P/2) m. accoriance with laxv, on its own merits, piTferably witbin a period of fb.n'e weeks from t.he date of receipt/prodiiction ota copy ofthis order. Sdf- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Thakur