^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WMT PETITION (S) NOMl^ 1 /2011 PETITONER: RESPONDENTS: ^y. ^-,>?v^ ^.^^\ ^••^'S'i^>o ..•^^•••>'" SUDARSR^N MALAKAR, S/o. Late Shri D.M. Malakar, Age about - 47 years, Head Master, Primary School, Tongripara, Block Lailunga, District fcailunga (C-^) ^'^^6' C^r^'^) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through : Secretary, Department ofTribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. THE COLLECTOR, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Department ofTribal Welfare, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3.-'.;.. ..< ,\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4151 OF 2011 PETITIONER Sudarshan Malakar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others ^NNNNW (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the or'der dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Primary School, Tongripara, Block Lailunga, District Raigarh to Primary School, Kalmi Block, Kharsiya, District Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in connection with the election work i.e. preparation, revision and correction of the electro! rolls, as is evident from the order passed in the month of 19-7-201 1 (Annexure ~ P/3). Thus, under the provisions of Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 the petitioner is deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission. Even the control, superintendence and discipline is also with the Election Commission. Therefore, in view of the said provision, the State Government is not competent to transfer an employee who is engaged in connection with the election work, as aforestated, during the said period. Gowri 6. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that in view ofthe clear statutory prohibition, the impugned order can be quashed, however, the same should be subject to verification offacts. For the reasons meritioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1), in respect of the petitioner, is quashed, subject to verification offacts. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge