€^r[yv^ r : '.. . IW THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUIt WRIT PETI¥ION(St N0, ^^ OF2009 PETITIONER : y^^' ...-" fr* ?1 ^•^"" W^YJ-''' »^%?p" •^-> ^\® RESPONDENTS: Narendra Kufflar Budde, S/o B.L. Buade, aged about 50 years, Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade), Presently posted and working as Joint Director, Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Raipur (CG). Versus /\. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary', Departanent of Technieal Education, D.K.S. Buildiiig, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG). ^J2. Under Secretary, Department of Technical Education, D.K. S. Building, Mantralaya, Ralpur, (CG). 3. Director, Technieal Education, Directorate, Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLfi 226 OF THE GONStITUTION OF INDIA A--. HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGH ATBILASPUR Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Petition (S) No. 3644 of 2009 Narendra Kumar Buade VERSUS 2>> State of Chhattisgarh and others. t. Shri B.D.Guru counsel for the petltioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG with Mrs. Smltha Ghai PL forthe respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (20.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finaily. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 24.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 bywhich the petitioner who is working as senior lecturer (selection grade) has been fransferred from the office of Directorate, Raipur to Government Polytechnic Ambikapur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present place of posting the petitioner had joined in the month ofAugust 2008 pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2008 and within a period of 10 months he has been shlfted again by the order impugned. He submits that in place of the petitioner nobody has been posted so far which shows thai there is no administrative exigency leading to passing of impugned order of transfer. Lastly he submits that the petitioner's daughter is in her mid-term sesslon and if the petltioner is compelled to go and join in the transferred place, he will face numerous difficulties. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/State submits that If the petitioner makes a representation to the authorities concemed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. To this proposition of the State counsel, counsel for the petitioner showed hls "'Accordingly, the petitlon is disposed of with a direction to the authorities cbncerned that in case the petitioner makes a representatioR -f>} '/' aSpnf ja->iEMia»51IroIJd -fPS •J3UO!}!)3d 9^} 0} S8}e[9J )1 se JBJ os9}ejsdo }ou ijBqs psuBndLui japjo eq} ueL|) ||ji -idieoej s}j p 9}ep sq} LUOJJ s>|S9M eejyijo pousd jsqvn^ e uiq}iM pepiosp sq ||eqs stuesstj} 'jepjo SIL)} p Adoojo idieoej jo 3)epeq) LUOJ^ sAep oi. jo poued e uiyiiM —^^—