6/ @ smGLE BENCH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (s) No. §H2€ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS V’émt. Bindu Gahguly (Devnath) W/o Sajnay Ganguly, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Parpodi, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) posted as Ladies Heath Visitor (L.H.V.) at Sector Parpodi (Saja), Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1./State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Rajpur (C.G.) 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3./ The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) /, 4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ix% ‘ \“‘J CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~ Wv‘ rv— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 2 BQLASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (S) No. 5425 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Amcie 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocaie for the State oRDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘“ day of september, 201 1) Challenge in this peiiiion is i0 the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P4), Whereb¥, t'ne petitioner working as Ladies Health Visitor (L.H.V.) at Sector Perpodi (Saja), has been transferred to Sector Anandgaon (Berta), on administrative grounds. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to Class-ill & lV services on proposai made by the other departments in approval of the minister in-charge. ln the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, Without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Coilector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned district, on proposal 0t the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the detect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainabie in the eyes of iaw. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is ailowed to the above-extent. Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNMORI Judge ashok tn; Present :- Shri B.P.Singh. Advocate forthe petitioner. 2’ PETlTlONER Smt. Bindu Ganguiy (Devnath) Versus l ‘6 RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others