Abbu Hussain v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3502 of 2014 1.

Abbu Hussain S/o Noor Hussain Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade III, At Industrial Training Institute Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur R/o Village Barela Po Barela PS Distt. Mungeli C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education & Manpower Planning, Science & Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur C.G.

2.

Deputy Secretary Department Of Technical Education & Manpower Planning, Science & Technology, The State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur C.G.

3.

The Principal Govt. Industrial Training Institute Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

4.

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corp Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Head Office Shastri Chowk Raipur C.G. 5.

B.R. Chandrakar Presently Posted As Assistant Grade III, Govt. Industrial Training Institute Bijapur Distt. Bijapur C.G. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA with Ms. Astha Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.5 Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

07/10/2015 1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 10-7-2014 whereby he has been transferred from Takhatpur to Bijapur.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting for the last more than one year on account of interim order dated 24-7-2014 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel would further submit that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 10-7-2014. It is accordingly ordered.

3.

Since no effect could be given to the impugned order on account of aforesaid interim order, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order in the facts of the case.

4.

In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the parties, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Gowri