AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 249 wordsGoutam Bhaduri, J
Heard.
The grievance of the petitioner is that initially by order dated 23.08.2019 the petitioner has been transferred from Rajnandgaon to Durg, however,
before he could take over the charge at Durg again a transfer order was issued whereby he was transferred from Durg to Madded, Forest Division
Bijapur and the petitioner thereafter took charge at Bijapur on 25.09.2019.
It is stated that the petitioner though was transferred by the State, the Chief Conservator of Forest by order dated 05.10.2019 has posted
respondent No.5 Sachchidanand Yadav at Bijapur Forest Division i.e. the same place wherein the petitioner has given the joining. It is stated that
though the petitioner has joined, however, the charge has not been given to him instead the order dated 05.10.2019 has intervened. Therefore, the
Chief Conservator of Forest respondent No.2 may be directed to clear such ambiguity.
Perusal of the document would show that the petitioner was transferred to Bijapur by the State Government by order dated 23.08.2019 and by
order dated 05.09.2019 respondent No.5 Sachchidanand Yadav was posted in the same place. Since according to Rule 12 of the Fundamental Rules,
two persons cannot be posted at the same place and same post. Considering the same, the respondent No.2 the Chief Conservator of Forest is
directed to clarify the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.