O xg IKQ§"€_M IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PEFITION (5) NO.§2?—L OF 2011 PETITIONER (V: Dilip Singh Uikey, S/O. LaTe Shri Mahasingh Uikey, Aged About 59 Years, R/O.Van Parishar Kafghcr‘a Tah.— Kafghom, Disf’r. Korba (6.6.) I VERSUS The Sfafe of Chhatfisgar‘h, Through: The Secrefar‘y, Department of Fores’r, Manfmlaya a‘r D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). / 2. The Conservator of Forest Bilaspur' Circle Bilaspur (C.G.) /3. Divisional Fores’r Officer, Katghofara Forest Division, Kafghora, Disft Korba (C.G.) - REsPONDENTs : /1.v ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5272 OF 2011 PETITIONER Dillp Singh Uikev Versus RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisqarh & Others (Wn‘t Petition under Adicle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. .J. Present :- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panei Lawver for the State. ORDER (Paseed on this 13“ day of December, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P—1). whereby. the petitionerv working as Assistant Grade-I has been transferred from the office. of Divisional Forest Officer. Katqhora Division. Katghora to the office of Conservator of Forest, Wild Life. Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 provides for transfer of a government employee of the district. by the Collector. on the basis of proposal made by the concerned department in coordination with the Minister in-charge. In the case on hand, the impugned transfer order has been passed bv the Conservator of Forest. who is not competent to pass the order. under the transfer policy. Thus. the transfer is bad in law. as the same has been passed by the incompetent officer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the State may be granted liberty to pass a fresh order. if so advised. in , accordance with law. 4. ln view of foregoing. the impugned order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P—1). having been passed by the incompetent offrcer. is quashed. However. liberty is reserved to the State Government to take steps. if so advised. in accordance with law. in public interest and administrative eXIgenCV. 5. Accordingiy. the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. No order aSIO cOStS. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AshoK