1 2025:CGHC:8986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1308 of 2025 Mr. Manish Bharti S/o Jagdish Chandra Bharti Aged About 30 Years Working As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bodla, Distt- Kabirdham ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mhanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 3 - Zila Panchayat CEO Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Rathiya, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 20.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Rathiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned G.A. appearing for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bodla, Distt Kabirdham vide order dated 07.02.2022 by Under Secretary, Nagar YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.25 18:07:40 +0530 2 Panchayat, Bodla, Dist- Kabirdham. On 22.02.2022, petitioner took charge of his duties of the post of Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bodla vide letter dated 22.02.2022. Later, the Collector has transferred and attached to the services of Petitioner to the post of Assistant Planning Officer on 17.01.2025, by passing an order changing two posts within the District. The petitioner has taken charge of his duties as Assistant Planning Officer the very next day of the order passed that is on 18.01.2025. Even though the petitioner is aggrieved by his demotion in his position, he has not retaliated with any response. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 has been passed by the incompetent authority, hence the same may be quashed. He further submits that the Collector have no power to transfer the post of the petitioner which is evident from the order dated 28.01.2017 by the Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development (C.G.). He also submits that impugned order dated 17.01.2025 suffers from illegality as the petitioner could not have been transferred by the Collector as he is the employee of the state government and he is also in 3 years of probation period, in which he cannot be divested from his position. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that impugned order is an appealable one and the instant petition is not maintainable. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as upon appreciating the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that without competency and jurisdiction, impugned order has been passed, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate order in respect of the petitioner. 7. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh