V)\l ^tt- HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.440 of2Q1Q APPELLANT Nagendra Singh, son of late Shri Shambhu Singh, aged about 59 years, working as a Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Baigapara, Janakpur, DistrictKoriya (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, District Koriya (CG) The Collector, DistrictKoriya (CG) The Block Education Officer, Bharatpur, Districf Koriya (CG) Shiv Kumar Sharma, son of late Shri Garun Ram Sharma, aged about 52 years, By occupation Head Master, Primary Schoot, Baigapara, District Koriya (CG) Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for theappellant. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents No.1 to 4. DjvjsioaBench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Sftri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGM E N T (24-2-2011) l. I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal is aliowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Also heard on admission. 3. Theappellant was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 herein against the order dated 27-12-2008 (Annexure-P/4) passed by respond&nt No.2 whereby the petitioner/respondentNo.5 herein was transferred from Primary School, Baigapara to Primary School, Kunwari just wlthin a period of 20 days from his posting at Baigapara. .-..^•f99 ^K: 4. This writappeal has been filed by respondent No.5 on the ground that the impugned order was passed without service of notice upon him hehind his back. The interim order was also obtained by suppressing the fact thatthe appellant had already submitted his joining report atthe transferred place though place of posting of the appellant has not been quashed, nevertheless, the concemedPrindpal is compelling the presentappellant to handover the charge of Headmaster to respondent No.5 on account Qf impugned order passed by this Court and the same is causing miscarriage of justice to the appellant. However, this aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judgewhile dismissing his application for reviewing the order dated 27-10-2Q10 (Annexure-A/10). 5; Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order as also the order passed in review. ; 6. The application of review has been dismissed on the ground that there is no such illegality or palpable error in the impugned order and also on the ground that review petition has been filed with an inordinate delay and as such, barredby limitation. 7. indisputably.by the impugned order, the transfer order dated 27-12-2008 (Annexure-P/4) so far as it relatestothe petitioner/respondent No.5 has been quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass order afresh if administrative exigency necessitates and in the impugned order, the petitiooer's transfer order has not been interfered with. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be permitted to assail the impugned order on the ground that the Principal oftheGovt. Higher SecondarySchoot, Bharatpur is compelling the appellant to hand over the charge of Headmaster to respondent No.5 (Annexure-A/8). 8. Qn the basis of aforesaiddiscussion, we find no substance in the writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is herehy dismissedat the admission stage itseff. - - - ; - _ _ - Sd/- Bawe Sd/- _. . ..„ DhirendraMishra judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge