SINCLEBflVCH IN THEHON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (Sl N0. <>332- 72011 ~7~ ra^TITIONER RESPONDENTS ^s^ '^-.^% .-<"y^"...--^' "^^' ...-•^^ (A ^••'" ^" 1. 2. 3." 4. ^ : H.C. Deshmukh, S/o Shri Mahavir Deshmukh, aged about 51 years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) present posted at Community Health Centre, Nikum as Ophthalmic Assistant. VERSUS ^' . , ' ! . '''. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secrefary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) Chief Meflical and Health C£^- Services,^ Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .-"/ PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTION (S) No. 5332 OF 2011 H.C. Deshmukh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Consfitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon?ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. 4. ashoK ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 09th day of September, 2011) Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner working as Ophthalmic Assistant at Community Heaith Centre, Nikum, has been transferred to Primary Heaith Centre, Khandsara (Bemetara), on administrative grounds. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is clearly stated that the Coiiector aioneis competent to transfer the empioyees belonging to Ciass-iii & iV services on proposal made by the other departments in approval of the minister in-charge. !n the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Medical & Heaith Officer, Durg, vAhout foliowng the guide!ines issued in the transfer poiicy had passed the order impugned, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned district, cn proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of connipetence of the officer. AccordingSy, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a resuit, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, If so advised, in accordance with iavv, in administrative exigency and in public interest. Accordingiy, the writ petition is aliowed to the above-extent. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge