SSS'SsSSS-Kx-K^ B18 fi''.; i~:- ^•^". liT.'l ^ '..] 3 l'- K{'S» ^l HK3HCOURTOF<» UCTnS6ARHAT8n.<WPl t WrttPetiUon(sllNo.48SWof2006 PeUtioner : Smt.GeetshrihtezumdarW/oShri Pratap Kumar h4atumdar, Aged about SOyears, Lecturer, GoyemmerrtBasic Traninig InstKute, Bilaspur, R/o L-9, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents :1. StateofChhatBsgarh-Through Th®Secrstaty,Sch<»lEducafion Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (c-<3-) 2. Th®Joint Secretasy. Sclwol tducation Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Sanchalak Rajya Staishtk AnusandhaB Evam Prashikshan Parishad, Slwnkar Nagar, Raifwr. 4. ThePrinclpat.^steTraininglnstiteiie, Bilaspur. 5. Shri Ashwini Kunar, Lei^urer, Sanslffit Boys Higher Secondary Schoo!, Loran!, Dl^t. Bilaspur (C.G.) §B : Hon'ble Mr. JusCce Safsh K. AanNiotrl WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 228/227 W THE CQNSTITUTIQN OR INDIA Mr. P.K. Bhadurt, Adwcate forthe p^ifioner, Mr. Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate for flie respondents No. 1,2 and 4/State. Mr. htetay K. Bhaduri, AdvocatefortherespondsntNo. 5. None appearsfor resirondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on Uiis 13th day ofApril, 2007) 1. The peBtioner, while working as Seniar Lecturw in Basis Training InstUute (B.T.I.), Bilaspur was transferred by ths ordsr dated 30.&2W6 (Annexure P/1) stating that on her own requ^t. This mislak®was realized, and immediately by tto oider «tated 1.9.2006 (Annexure R/5-A) the order dated 30.8.2006 was amended, ^afir®that ttre transferwas due to administraBve exigency. 2. The matter was taken up for hearing on 7.9.2006, whsn it was not pointed out that the order has been amended. Th®only ccmtention of the petitioner was that the impugned Iransfer oreterAms passed on the ^ basis of her request, which she has never made. !t is orime facie aooarent that the subsequent amended order, which was passed immediate'y ori the next date, was deliberately kept back and not disclosed to this Court, whi'e securing the stay order dated 7.9.2006. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 'ne was not aware of the amended order dated 1.9.2006, as such he could not bring it the notice of this Court while making his submission and securina the i"t. stay order. Sn view of concealment of the facts and otherwise aiso, nothing suraives in this matter as the order was passed in routine, due to administrative exigency and in pubiic po'icy. Thsre is no aitegation 6f made fide, Incompetence of the officer 'n making the order or vioiation of any ruSes/resuiations. !n view of the forsgoing, I do not find any merit in this petition, whlch desesves te be and is according'y dismissed. No order as to costs. y- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge