IH THB mOH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILAESPUR W.P.No. VI T- / 2003 / t'^ PETmOWER RESPONDENTS / .^ <.y7 &w',- ^-^' A. K. Sharma, S/o Late Manmohan Prasad Shariua, /Aged about 45 years, / Occupation- Service, Presently Posted as Assistant Engineer (Design) / In the of&ce ofEi^ineer In Chie^ i: Water Resources Departnient, Raipi.u' R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Behind Sheetia Mandir, Dagania, Raipur (C.G.). Versiis 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Throi^h Secretary, Water Resources / Department, Govt. ofC.G., K. D. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Departnient, Raipur (C.G,) ../'' <? ^ ^wsrr pBrmoN UNDER ARTICLE 225/227 OF THK CONSTITUION OF s'>.•/' INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFA SUITABLE^WRIT^EDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MA.rTER. / m. WXW Xl-He-22 ' • 'W^''STpre^»^'y< <waj<i;i< Stl^iq? 'R'ii.'* sn§g Bi-t,?»- 11f ;%';i'-' Slui Rajeev Shriyastst Shri PrafuBa Bbarat, j The grievaace of the, 20-12-2002, he^pastraiisfl that order CQiild be jimpIeiiJLented has been traasferred to Ka^ The challenge in 'this has been affected during sessipn is coaiiag to an. Boar3 exanimation. Jt is jpetttioii is on two grounds fhat transfer fhe tU.at tlle transfer order will advers^ly Acconlingly, the prayer is tfll fhe end of fhe acadeinic Adinittedly, agaiiist aiovcd aay representation was aggrieved, he could havi offhe authonties by wayOfi would have been considerefl perspective. Siace fhis has 'sM'.V^-i'''i:fi'-iciftft^ ^&ngt ^aWisitei • - .' ya, cQunelibrthfi petitioner; E'aneM'amyer, fertBe State. WTtt,petiti6iter is that vide order dated irred &oin Raipur tb Cllura tiut Taisfore videoider dated 27-1:2-2002 he Sl. bait period aiid^when Ihe acadenuc "/ etld his dayghter fias tb appear at llie ^tatedi?that thfi impleiueirtatiprt oftbe affect' the studies of his daughter. at^least Ns traasfer inay t>e deferred ession. traasfer order thc petitioner bas not I'aismg lus grievance. If thc petitioner beeii brought these facts to the notice ja representation, which the Gourt feels /" •.'••• • ' • • • by fhe said authorities in its proper jio.tbeeh done, the Court thinks it '{'(jf^^i^^ —z.- f-" XI-HC-22 d-cj ^i4M<!, '®T(ra*i<o, ^ SiI^I-EflT tN?;'311^1 ^P^:i"m^T '%ut,, .QTV\^ <v. .-^ "^ ^..t&.^./.^ Sn^TCiRR^fe ^l<1Wi1il HR??f^ E^^ <M^R ^iariigsTsi^w considered by the authoritiesl appropriate to dispose of fhi^ writ petition with a direction that in case a representation is niaf^eby fhe petitioner to fhe concemed authority wifhin seven da^s jrom today, the same shall be on its own nierits wifh aa open nund it WAII^__ 3^^ and^take^&ppropriate decisio^i thereon proiapfly. The authority wiU be free to consider deferring tUl the eud of the acadeinic petitioner's daughter, who is not affected. I.A.No. 246/2003 for urgent the traasfer of the petitioner at least session, so that that the studies of to appear in Board examination, are Wifh thc abovc observ^tions aad directions this vm.t petition stands disposed of. Con^cquently M.W.P. No.62/2003 and iariag also stand disposed of. Certi&ed copy as per rujles. Sd/- P. C. Naik Judge r'fli ^KS^