g—- ^>) HIGHCOURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Pet'rtioner Respondents Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Writ Appeal No.335/2009 Ajeet Kumar Lakra, S/o Shri S.M. Lakra, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher Middle School Fatehpur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Scheduled Caste/ Scheduie Tribes Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Coilector (Tribai Development) Surguja, Ambikapur (CG) 3. Commissioner, Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes Development Deptt., Raipur (CG) Writ appeal under Section 2 n) ofthe CG Hiah Court (Appeal to Divtsional BencM Act. 2006 Present: Shri R.P. Singh, counset for the appeliant. Shri UNS Deo. Govt. Advocate with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. Oral Order (Passed on 13th of November, 2009) This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.09.2009 passed inW.P.(S). No.5337/2009, wherebythe petition of the petitioner against his transfer order has been dismissed. The appellant has preferred this appeal along with an y^ s A^CS /y. application (I.A. No.01) for condonation of delay of^-'moriths in fiiing this appeal. (2) Considering the grounds mentioned in I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay, which is also supported by affidavit of the appellant, I.A. No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. -3- b^ (3) Also heard on admission. (4) The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant had made a representation against his transfer order for reconsideration of his transfer from Fatehpur to Batauli on the ground that his children are studying in Fatehpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). Similarly situated other employee's representation was considered on similar grounds. However, representation submitted by the appellant has been rejected. However, this aspect has not been considered in the impugned order. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and we are satjsfied that learned single Judge, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant herein, has categorically held that if the authorities have considered similar case on humanitarian ground, it cannot be made a precedent to consider all the cases on humanitarian ground. The challenge was not on other admissible grounds i.e. malafide, violation of provisions of law or lack of competence of the authority passing the order. We find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the writappeal. (6) The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. -_- —- — Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Priya