^ •^ i; . ^. ^ '• IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. ?^^& /2011 (S.B.l PETITIONER [^^ ^o-'y>v RESPONDENTS w: Smt. K.B. Lal, D/o Shri B.K. Lal, aged about 49 years, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Dhamtari, Near Shitla Mandir, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) posted as Women Health Worker at Arkar (Gurur), Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The secretary Health and Faraily Welfare Departraent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3s. The Collector, Durg Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 2. Director .<"' PETiTJONER RESPONDENTS H!GH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH LBJLASEUR WR!T PETiTION (S) No. 5658 OF 2011 Smt.K.B.Lai Versus State of Chhattisgarh .& Others CWrit Petltlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel. Lawyer for the State.;':. • • ORDER (Passed on this 12tn day of October, 2011) 1. The petItiQner impugns the order dated 15^ Ju!y, 2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the orderwas not passed by a competent authority i.e. the Collector, in accordance wlth the poiicy decision dated 13 June, 2011. 2. It appears that the transfer order has been approved by the Collector, ihough the same has been passed by the Chief Medical & Heaith Officer, Durg. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after mbre than two ar?d haifmonths, thus, the impprtance of questioning the transfer order do^s not sun^sye, asjli^a^^^ the transfer has been chajlenged oh .account of tft^ fa^that in some cases, the transfer issued by non-cojppetent <^ been cancelled. !f the transfer orderhasbeenco|fip!iedNth, there.is no question of reconsidering the validlty of the sar|e. However, if it is stili not compiied with, the same shal! not be glven effect to and a fresh order may be passed. 3. The transfer is an Inddence of serviceand the petitloner, In ail matters is not likely to suffer, ifthe petitloner has aiready acGepted byjoinlng the new piace of posting. Thus< at this stage, it Is not proper to examine the iegaljty and vaildity ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. As a result, if the petitloner has already not been reiieved, the transfer order 15th-July, 2011 (Annexure P-l) in respect ofthe petitioner, shal! not be given effect to, until a fresh order is passed by the competent aythority in pubiic Interest and in adminlstrative exigesicy. 5. Accordingly, thewrit petitlon disppsed of. No order asto coste. ^ sshok sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge