\;- '^- .S^i^S^ ^•so"'^.**--tes'JS^!4^AAto t. ^f^°.o t- p(es^.----"--'''"''"'t. d--""". ' ' - • . ! ! ' BEFORE THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR ( GHHAmSGARH) W.P. (SINo. SS^> /2010 PETITIONER Parashnath MaKendra, S/o Bhagwali Mahendra, aged about 52 years, R/ o Goyt. Primary School, Kharra, BloGk-Gurur, Distt. DurgfC.G.) "^.^ !®iS iilE;!:! lr^ ,l;.c?."^c? VERSUS . RESPONDENTS >-1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Its ^ecretary Education Departtnent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^2. District Education OfBcer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 OF THE . CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARSOF THEPETITIONER: ' AsroentionedintheGausetitleabove. . 2) PARTICULARS QF THE RESPONDENTS: , Asmentioned in thecause titleabove; , > ^ .' .' '•'.'.... • •' • •••••• :. .'•••••••'•'...: "••''•••": 3) RARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST'WHICHTHE PETmONIS MADE:! ;: •, .. • :'' •: •":''; ' ^- , : .: ,i^pri^^.^-.'<^.'i @!ITS;^:5n«ztraT?f3' CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Arun PgTITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5523 OF 2010 Parashnath Mahendra Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 25th dayof January, 2011) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Education Officer, Durg whereunder the petitionerhas been transferred from PrimarySchool Kharra (Gumr) Education District-Durg to Primary Scliool, Chherkapur (Navagarh) Education District-Bemetara. Shri Shrivastava, learnedcounsel forthe petitionersubmits that there are two separate Education District.Durgand Bemetara and the District Education Officer, Durg has jurisdiction to pass an order for placing within Education District Durg alone. He cannot pass any order, which falls within the jurisdiction of other District Education Officer. Thus, the impugnedorder is bad forwant of competence of the officer. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that there are two Education Districts headed by two District Education Offiqprs. Th6 District Education Officer, Durg has passed the transfer orderto post thepetitioner in other Education District. However, theorder was passed with approval ofthe Minister-in-Charge. Be that as it may, evehif, it is approved by the Minister-in-Charge, the jurisdiction and competence cannot be cohferred on a particular officer to transfer an employee to some other education district. There is no memo or circular in respect of the contention of the State that the District Education Officer, Durg has jurisdiction to transfer tMe petitioner to other education district. In viewofforegoing.theorderisvitiatedforwantofjurfediction ofthe officer passing the order. Thus, the impugned transfer order passed in respect ofthe petitioneris liable tp be and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition isallowed.No order asto costs. ^as1 rt1'] ITT^! --.I3iIT"-7=ICTF:T'k.;t! K%^: