r 1 C9 (^ 4^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0.5^^^ OF 2011 PETITIONER ^' Kartik Ram Bagh^.1 S/o Khorbahara Ram Baghal, aged about 53 years, occupation service, presently posted as Headmaster, primary Schoot Motipur, Block - Patan , District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS . 1. ^ ...••: ^•'Artv^ ...••: ^&^2 ...-•^•wu- ,^- ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh). 3. District Education Officer, District Education Office, Near Multipurpose School, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4. Block Education Officer, Block office, Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,-'"..<^ -^^^' ^ 1 ^ ^. ^-^./A^ l^irf^^ z? PETmONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5623 OF 2011 KartikRam Baghet Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri SatishK. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. 4. ashok ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of September, 2011) Chaitenge in this petition ss to the order dated 15 July, 201 1 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Education OfRcer, Durg, whereby, the petitioner working as Headmaster at Primary School Motipur, Block Patan, has been transferred to Primary School Chitamgota, Btock Dondi-Lohara, on administrative grounds. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13th June2011 (Annexure P-2), it Js clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the empioyees betonging to Class-111 & IV services on proposal made by the other departments in approval of the minister in<?harge. In the case on hand, it appears that the District Education Officer, Durg, without following the guidelines Jssued inthe transfer policy had passed the order smpugned, when the Coltector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a result, if the petitioner has already not beers retieved, the transfer order dated 15th July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofthe petitioner, shall not be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the competent authority in publicinterest and administrative exigency. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent; Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge