Quashed

Smt. Mamta Choudhry v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2011WPS/5381/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an order cancelling a previous posting of the Chief Municipal Officer. The court granted liberty to the State to pass an appropriate order if administrative exigency arises.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing the transfer of the Chief Municipal Officer is quashed, with liberty to the State to pass an appropriate order.

Smt. Mamta Choudhry Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

$§§§£€u§f gfwgg

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

(CHHATTISGARHI w.p.(S)No. 95% /201o

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER'

¶7

PETITIONER' Smt. Mamta Choudhly, W/o. Shri Surcndra Singh Choudhry, aged about 45 years, working as Asstt. Grade — VII, Nagar Panchayat, €4$é”/\OQQ)95 Gharghoda, Distt. Rajgarh (C.G.) \ 4 v^w,,..., \ VERSUS / RESPONDENTS (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Urban Administration and Develcpment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Shiv Yadav, working as Revenue Sub Inspector, Office of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

€4$é”/\OQQ)95 QQ)95 ‘,. 4 v^w,,..., \

¶9

VTRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 TEE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^ATBILASPUR

¶11

(Hon.^{Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker)}

¶12

» Writ Petition (S) No.^5381of2010

PETITIONER

Smt. Mamta Choudhary

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and^another.

¶17

Shri Vinod Deshmukh^{counselforthe} petitioner. ' Shri Yashwant Singh^{ThakurDy.AGand} Shri Bhashkar Payasi PL for respondent^No.1 Shri H.B. Agrawal learned Sr. counsel with Shri J.K. Gupta for respondent^No.2.

¶18

WRIT PETITION UNDER^{ARTICLE226OFTHE} CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(07.09.2011)

¶21

Challenge in this petition^{istotheorderdeted8.9.2010} passed by respondent No.1 canceiiing the eariier^{orderdated16.8.2010and} directing the charge^{ofChiefMunicipaiOfficer,Ghargodatobegiven} to respondent No.2.

¶22

During the pendency^ofthis petition, on 11.11.2010 an order (Annexure^{R;1)hasbeenpassedpostingrespondentNo.2asChief} MunicipaIOfFicer,Saja. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that pursuant^{tothisorderrespondentNo.2hasjoinedatSaja.} 3. In view of the subsequent developments, counsel for the petitioner^submits that the order impugned (Annexure P-1) may be quashed granting.^{libertytotheStatetopassanappropriateorder} if occasion arises.

¶23

Accordingly, in this view of the matter, order impugned (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. StatesGovernment^would be at' liberty to pass appropriate order with respect to posting of Chief Municipal^{Officer,Ghargoda,} if required^{inadministrativeexigency.}

¶24

¶25

Sd/—

¶26

Petition thus^disposedof.

¶27

¶28

Pritinker Diwaker

¶29

Judge

Smt. Mamta Choudhry v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta Choudhry v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diwaker Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mithla Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Jamadar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mantu Ram Dhruv and Another Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rashmi Subba Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.