s ^ <bx HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Appellant Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ WritADDealNo.331/2009 Godam Singh Parmar, S/o Late Tejan Ram Singh, aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher Middle School Chitvishrampur, Balrampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Versus Respondents 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through ~ The Secretery, Scheduied Caste/Schedule Tribes Development Department, Mantralaya. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Collector O'ribal Development) Surguja, Ambikapur (CG) Commissioner, Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes Development Deptt., Raipur (CG) Writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the CG Hiah Court (Appeai to Divisional Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinay Harit, Oy. Advocate General with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panei Lawyer for the State. Oral Order (Passed on 12r" of November, 2009) This writ appeal is directed against the order (Annexure A-5) dated 08.10.2009 passed in W.P.(S). No.5340/2009, whereby the petition of the petitioner against rejection of his representation with respect to the order of transfer dated 30.06.2009 has been rejected by the respondent No.1. (2) The grievance of the appellant is that the writ petition (S) No.3993/2009 was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to file representation against the transfer order of Annexure P-1. Exercising the aforesaid liberty, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja. However, the same has been dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 31.08.2009 without assigning any reason. (3) Learned counsel for the appetlant submits that except the appellant's and one more person's representation, all the other representations made by similarly situated employees were considered and the transfer orders were either cancelled or modified. However, an exception has been made in the case of appellant, who has suffered transfer within a short span of nine months against the transfer policy of the State Govemment. (4) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned single Judge, after considering the arguments advanced by the petitioner and after elaborately discussing the settled principle of law with regard to transfer, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not acquire any right to continue at a particular place and the petitioner has not been able to make out any permissible legal ground warranting interference with the order of his transfer. (5) After going through the impugned order, considering the law laid down with respect of transfer, we are satisfied that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and the same does not call for interference. (6) The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Priya