s c^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fStNO. ^^ /2011 PETITIONER M.D. Chauhan S/o Late Ram Singh Chauhan, aged about 55 years, v •^ ^':?.. ^' r^, \ '^••'"''^ 4^y"?"' Occupation Service, posted as Senior s:?..*-'1'"' ^'n/5'^l-I>^'<''"\ v \"4/""' Agriculture Development Officer, •^A.-'-'" Gundardehi, District Durg C.G. ^0-" RESPONDENTS VERSUS -1. State of C.G. through the Secretary Agriculture Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. 2. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, /' Durg, District Durg C.G. ,3. Shri D.K. Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Block Anda, Durg, District Durg C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, The humble petitioner named above most respectfully showed: 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS. As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. As mentioned in the cause title. !&-• HJGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.33 OF 2011 PETITIONER M.D. Chauhan RESPONDENTS Versus State of C.G. & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - Present:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 7th day of January,.2011) 1. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that admittedly the petitioner's substantial post is Senior Agriculture Development Officer, but after recording that his work is not satisfactory, the petitioner was posted as Subject Matter Specialist at Dhamdha, which amounts to stigmatic. 2. At this Juncture, Shri Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the employer is at liberty to post an employee in the public interest as well as administrative exigency, however, if there is any remark against the petitioner, the petitioner may make a representation for clarification. If the representation is made the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 3. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nothing survives-th this petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ^l Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •^•-