o) HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.349 of 2009 APPELLANT DX. Gupta, S/o Late Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, aged about 45 years, Block Education Officer, Lundra, P.S. and Tahsii Lundra, District Surguja (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Collector (Tribal Development) Surguja Ambikapur (CG) Commissioner, Schedule Caste/ScheduSe Tribes Development Department, Raipur (CG) Maniram Yadav, S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Yadav, aged about 45 years, Lecturer Eklavya Residentiai School Sanna, Distt. Jashpur (CG) Permanent R/o Lundra, Tah. & P.S. Lundra, Distt. Surguja (CG) Present: Shri SVIanoj Paranjpe, counsei for the appeliant. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for respondent No.4. DlvislorLBench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra IVIishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. ChandraRar. JJ. JUDGiVIENT (4-12-2009) The foliowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. L\ i. This writ appea! is directed against the order dated 18th November, 2009 passed in WP(S) No.6744/2009 whereby the writ petltion of the appeiiant agalnst hls transfer order dated 9th November, 2009 has been dismissed. 2. The appeliant is a Junior Principai and he was posted ^s In-charge, Biock Education Officer, Lundra; District Surguja. He was transferred to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surguja by order dated 9th November, 2009. The appellant's wrst petltion cha!!englng his transfer order has been dismissed by the impugned order with an observation that hls substantive post is Junior Principal and he was posted as Incharge, Block Education Officer. Since the appeilant is holding the substantive post of Junior Principal, pay scale whatever the appeliant is drawing shall be protected. 3 Shri iVianoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the aforesasd transfer order has been passed just to accommodate respondent No.4, who Is lecturer and has been posted as In-charge Block Education Officer. Referring to the notification of the erstA/hile Govemment of Madhya Pradesh dated 26-7-1994, it was argued that 60% posts of Block Education Officer is to be fi!!ed in with the Principai who has compieted one year of servlce as Principai and the remaining 40% is to be filled jn by Area Organlzer. Thus, respondent No.4 cou(d not be posted as in-charge Block Education Officer. 4. Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsei for respondent No.4 submitted that the impugned order has aiready been executed and respondent No.4 has taken over the charge of the In-charge Block Education Officer Lundra In compllance of his transfer order on 11-11 -2009. 5. We are unabie to accept the arguments advanced by iearned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.4 has been posted as in-charge Biock Education Officer. in any case, the appellant was posted as Block Education Officer in offidating capacity only at Lundra and he did not have any legal and substantive right to continue in the said post. He has been transferred on his substantive post to Surguja at the option of Assistant CommissSoner, Tribal Development, Surguja within the same district. The wrst petition has been dismissed by consldering the settied principfes of law holding field in the matters of transfer of an employee/officer. 6. For the aforesald reason, we find no substance in the writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. ___—_— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve b-