c- ^ '(6 c BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S)No5^25 /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / T.R.Sahu, S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Accountant, Block Education Officer, Deundi Lohara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS .1. ,.^^r i-^^1'""-...--""^, State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH ECOJlSTiTUT 1ON OF INDIA. ^ HIGH COURTOFOMHATnSGARH : BtLASPUR WRIT PETITION (SVNo. 5829 OF 2011 PETITiONER T.R.Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhatiisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artiote 228 of the Constitution ef india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. 5. Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advooate fortheState. QRDER (Passed on ttiis 29tn day of September, 2011) The petffioner impugns the order dated 15 Juiy, 2011 (Annsxure P-1) on the ground that the orderwas not passed by a competail authority i.e. the Coliector, in accordance wth the policy decision dated 13 June, 2011. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Coilector, though the same has been passed by the District Educalion Officer, Durg. The petitioner has cflosen to approach this Court after more than two months, thus, the imDortance of questioning the transfer order does not survive, as it appears that the transfer has been challenged on aocount of the fact that in some cases, the transfer issued by non- competent offfcer, has been cancelled. If the transfer order has been oomplied with, there is no question of reconsidering the vatidity (rf the same. However, if It is still not complied with, the same sha!) not ba given effect to and a fresh order may be passed. The transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner, in all mattas is not iikely to suffer, if the petitioner has already accepted by joining the new piace of posting. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to examine the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. As a resuit, if the petitioner has already not been reiieved, Ihe transfer order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect ofthe petitioner, shati not be given effect to, unttl a fresh order is passed by competent authority in public interest and in administrative exigency. Accordingiy, the writ pelition disposed of. No order asto costs. sshoic Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge