HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 835 OF 2011 Petitioner Arvind Prasad Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No.1 to 3. Shri N.N.Roy, Advocate on behalf of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER ORAL (P§ssed on this 215 day of February, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the order dated 14.7.2010 has been amended in spite of the fact that the same has already been executed. Learned 'counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 14.7.2010 the petitioner has been transferred to Kunwarpur i.e. in place of one Ramanuj Sharma. Accordingly, the petitioner joined at the transferred place. However, on account of representation preferred by Ramanuj Sharma on the basis of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4105 of 2010 (Ramanuj Shanna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) his transfer order has been kept in abeyance. However, after retirement of Ramanuj Sharma on 31.1.2011 charge has been given to the petitioner. ln the meanwhile, on the basis of approach made by the respondent No.4 herein, the transfer order dated 14.7.2010 passed in respect of the petitioner has been amended. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 14.7.2010 .3“) cannot be amended as the same has aiready been executed and the petitioner joined at the transferred place. Thus, the order dated 21 .1 .2011 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. l have heard teamed counse! appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. in the opinion of this Court once the transfer order is executed, it is not necessary to cancel the same. The employer is always at liberty to pass an order of transfer and posting of an employee, keeping in View the administrative exigency and public interest. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 21.1.2011 s (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents/ employer to pass an order, if so advised, in accordance with law, keeping in view the public interest and administrative it exigency. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/~' ashok