^•! ^&s ,^' ^•- -,.9.&^. ..••^^5:>"" !1-:""£ \ ^-^" ^^ a-\-RO BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. S-Sl 7 1 2010 PETITIONER Lakshmikant Mishra S/o. Late Shri Munni Lal Mishra, aged about- 46 years, Head Constable posted at CISF Unit, NTPC Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India, Through:- Secretary, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi 2. Director General, CISF Headquarter, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ^ 3. Additional Inspector General, North Area Office, CISF, Saket, New Delhi 110017 4. Commandant, CISF, KSTPP Korba (C.G.) 5. Deputy Commandant, CISF, NTPC Seepat, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA B^ ^TRRT^, ^'ai^^Ko, M<ni<r{^< ...t^..^.....^^./2Ao. •^??1R^^(rt^l) ^i^i'^rf^iN' WT3?i^r'^^ <! SB: Hon^ble Shri Manindra Moban Shrivastava, J. 21.6.2010 Ms. Naushina Ali, counsel! Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Asj India/respondents, on advance <] ^Rf^pft^ ^nwrf ^ fe^ Tt^ ^^H^?^T for the petitioner. $t. Solicitor General for Union of ;opy. Heard. The petitioner has filed ijhis petition aggrieved by order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) by whjich petitioner's representation against transfer has been rejected as ba|'red by limitation prescribed under the administrative guidelines in the matter of transfer. Submission of learned c<|)unsel for the petitioner is that even before issuance of transfer ord^r, a memo was issued on 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), wherein partlculars of children of the personnel studying in higher classes were |'equired to be submitted to the office of Dy. Commandant, Central lnd\ Bilaspur. Learned counsel for tH came to notice of the petitioner| on 12.2.2010 (Annexure representation, this aspect has ij [-istrial Security Force, NTPC, Seepat, ie petitioner submits that as soon as it representation was made as early as -6). While rejecting petitioner's p_ ot been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the p^titioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D|irector of School Education, Madras 8& Ors. Vs. O. Karuooa Thevaki and Another, 1994 Supp. (21 SCC 666. On the other hand, su respondents is that the transl bmission of learned counsel for the fer guidelines required representation ^,<f5RT<PTT<?—FS/147—2/2010—1,00,000. ^?%. ^^, ^ 'STI^Tf ^T R'iJcb TT^TT ^^ s^^{<=rT Praveen ^r^ ^Cr^ '^"^r ^s<Lis<n^ ^til<-i4i^ [^<ni^^< ^swn w^ic^ ••^200 3n^r Tra^ ('li?f3^f) ^^TW^f^n 3:n^T -2- against the transfer order was not done in the present dated 16.10.2009(Annexure P-j by 30th October, 2009 J representation on 12.2.201 Q representation was rightly rejejc I have considered the the parties. In my opinion, as representation on 12.2.2010 employees whose children ar^ proper on the part of representation ignoring this as In this view of the rnatl justice to direct respondents its own ments. Accordingly, order date|l aside. Respondents shall con^ on its own merits. With the aforesaid off. sul^mitted within the stipulated time, which dase. It is also submitted that vide memo j3), details were required to be submitted whereas petitioner submitted his (Annexure P-6) and, therefore, the ;ted. s^ibmissions made by learned counsel for GM^F<yl<flTl ^TTR^ff ^ fe^ ^psi^K ^ 3fRW 3TT^T the petitioner had submitted his cjlaiming to be covered by classf of those studying in higher classes, it was not ijespondent authorities to reject the ^pect. (er, it would be proper in the interest of }o consider petitioner's representation on 5.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set ider the representation of the petitioner obs^rvations, the petition is finally disposed Sd/- MamndraMohanSteivastava Judge