c i^ ^n^ ) I BENSJS- IK THE_HIGH QiTJia' OFJum'CgTBBB «• HELASpTj-R ^ C.G.) JISS-^rITSfiN(^2*-S-2£^-/2oos. PETTTIONBR ^° ^ ?•%&• ...•-^•^•l' iri.> ss'~~ ^;^ /'<f'i;y-"~"~<(°S\, ff'?/ &pAai'ls*A V"^ ?<i ~a L^.^:; :. ^^'^. \ \"' w:// w^y Dr. -Xj a.v Pandey son df Shri R.c- Pah^c^ aged atout ^L years resldait Of iS-arl- •Cl-HleL E»-<)-Jl4'»^|Fqn^, SZE.BStlS ..1. The State of Chhattlsgarh Thibugh it's Secretary Department of 'agrlculture ('ft-ilmal aisl^andry) D.K.S. aiavan Msitralaya Ralpur (C.G.). 2« The Dlrec-tor Dlrectorate of VeteEinary Services aa-ipur (C.G.). ,'•3, Dr. Nar&ttan. ChanAi-ak.ar -ftrtlficial Insenlnation Gentre wandlr Hasoud Saipur (C.G.) pETlTI®.fUNHBR aRTICt,S 226/227 OF THE asKISTlTOTION Q.F INDIA EOR IS3UWCE OS'teP^BCPB-rM'E gRIT,^_05DBR • D DIBECTIOH Etc, R?^r>:co?I t£c!'%%? C^K1'^^-°^ .J"AA*\_ l:i i-i XI-HC-78 sfi^r w R4J+ (RITSn^Tsbilicb M Gooa] .-^ .\v *iwwi sh*llt»> 3sr/pi<(i$*i<, »Tflw'i<s,Kit-iwy (L^-y • (S^) ^a • ^^D/^£ 200 aTT^nraa; ('iq'3'5"i.eT) STtirwsfersn^T 97.in.7nro j&i ? a 1 W ai Mr. Samser Behar, cound Mr. Sumeet Verma, Pan^ With the consent of ,'earitsd counsel for the partjes, the matter is finaliy and disposed of. Orderdicfatsd in opsn C^urt, passsd separately. <tii<i(<li'ifl.< iiH<iTffte<A<Ri«i< ^aTf^Tsn^T Sei for the petitioner. 1 Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 2. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge P.T.O. m ^^tiflr^r-, 'vfci u^^^i ? SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTR!. J. WRrLPETiTiQN (S.INQ.SZSO OE y'ersus Dr. Ajay Pandey The Stata nf nhh ate of Chhssttisaarh and ^vS'y^&pf Preseni : Mr. Sameer Behar, counsei ror the petitioner. SVir. Sumeet Vsrma, Pans! Iswyer for respondents No.1 and2. 'r^i^sr^. >:7ffn (Psssed on 27"' of October, 2006) Ths petltioner was working as Assistant Surgeon in Governmenf Cattls B'eeding Farm, Chandkhuri, Dlstrict Ralpur. The Director, Vstsrinary Servises, Government cf Chhattisgarh, Raspur, by oi-der dated 8-10-2006 (Annsxure P-1), aiiocated ths work to the pstitionsr to work as Manager, the Catt'e Bresdjng Farm, Mandir Hasaud, District Rsi&ur and respondent No.3 was ailocated the work in the Caffls Breedinc Farm, Chandkhuri, within the same district. The transfsr ordsr mentions the altocatlon of work ordsr. 2. Ths pstitEonsr has impugnec the order dated 9-10-2006 (Annsxura P-1) on the ground that rsspondent No.2 has no powsr to distribute the work among the Assistant Veterinary Surgeons within the same district. The petitioner has not produced any document except a mere statement in the pleading that the Director. Vetsrinary Services has no competence to pass such order for allocation of work. 3. The petitioner reiies on esriier order dgted 13-2-2003 (Annexure P-2), whersby the petitioner was iransferred fro.'n District Kanker to District Raipur by the Principa! Secretary to the Government, Agricuiturs (Veterinary) Department. !t appears that inter-district transfsr is made by the Governmsnt and work aliocation is done by the Director. The petitioner has not produced any document or any matsriai to substantsate his argumsnt. 4. Having heard learned counss! for the partles and on perusa' of th®papers, It is evident that the ordsr is just and proper and !t is a simpls work aiiocation ordsr not a transfsr order from one place to other pjace. There is no other ground to chailenge the work allocation s. ihu'Q fhl<; t^s^i^l^r^ i<; .rii^i^ies^fSiTl .h^l^r^ rlA'1.^^!;'^ ^f ?y!is?'if M.-^ , 5-i ii^ ^'d,Jl.<Vi i 1'3 Ui^)i i Ui9t3C?>ut w^iu^ ^^c'yvr-i ui3 lijffiii... i ^''i/ order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ijOQSi