f © SiNGLE BCTCH IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ISINO. 5"^3/ /2011 (S.B.) PETITIONER ^"'y &^'\^ ^x ^^ ••''y/'r^ ~ ^ ^0)' <G" RESPONDENTS ^\6^Ai^S^% ^^y\^r(^ ^" '^?-.-.-^^' Ku. Meeta Das, D/o Late Shri Nirmal Kumar, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) posted as Staff Nurse at Conimunity Health Centre, Arjunda (Gunderdehi) Distt. Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Director Health Seryices, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3: The Collector, Durg ' Distt. - Durg (C.G.) Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 2. 4" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1"^ ashoR HtGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5631 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ku. Meeta Oas Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Othere (Writ Petition underArtide 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present > Shri B.P.Singh, AdvoGateforthe pdlitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State- ORDER (Passed on this 22"a day of September, 2011) i 1. ChaISenge in this petition is to the order dated 15 July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Chief Medteat & Health Offscer, Durg, whereby, the petitsoner working as Staff Nurse at Communsty Health Centre, Arjunda (Gunderdehi), has been transferred to Commynity Health Centre, Saja, cn administrative grounds. 2, Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13th June 2011 (Annexure P-2), st is deariy stated that the Coiiector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to Class-tll & IV services on proposal made by the other departments m approval of the minister in-charge. 3. tn the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Mledical & Heaith Officer, Durg, withoutfollowing the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the prder impugned, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the emptoyees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence ofthe officer.AcGordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. As a result, ifthe petitioner has already not been relieved, the transfer order dated 15^ July, 2011 (Annexure P-1) In respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to, urrtil a fresh order is passed by the competent authority In publte interest and admmistrative exigeney. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is atlowed to the above-extent. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge