•^,' ^fo AR< HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR 'y PETITIONER RE_SPON_DENTS WR!TPETITiQN(QNQ. 2639 of 2009 ! Ku. Shlipi Patel, D/o Madan Kumar Patel, aged about 21 years, residence of vlliage "; and post Dharamjaigarh, District Ralgarh Versus 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, through Secretar^, Hlgher Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. Chhaltlsgarh State Education Research and Tralnlng Councj!, through Its DSrector, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG). 3« Princlpal,. Oistrict instltute of Edu^ation and Training, Baikunthpyr, Korea, District Korea(CG); (Writ Detltion under Article 226 of the Constjtution of india) Slngle Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satssh K, Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Vr^ CJ.K. Rao, counsei for the pttjtioner. - • ' Nr. Amrlto Das, Panei Lawyer forthe Stete. ORDER (ORM) (Passed on this 30th day of June,2Q09) Heard tearned counsel for th@ partles. 2) By this petition, the petitionsr seeks a direction to the respondent authorlties to conssder her case for transfer fronrs DI.ET, Baikunthpur, Korea ; to DIET, Dharamjaigarh, on the ground of her III health. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petltjoaer sybmlts that the petltloner having been seiected for the course of Dlploma In Education In the year 2008 and has been aiiotted coilege of District Institute of Edycatlon and Tralning, Baikunthpur, Korea. After joining the tralning, the petltioner had fatien ili on account of high fever and ieft for her house at Dharamjaigarh and undergone for treatment from 9-9-2008 to 25-1-2CX)9« On 20-9-2008 the petitioner moved an appilcation before the respondent No.2 for mutuai transfer from DIET, Korea to DIET, Dharamjalgarh. On the , said appiication the respondent No,3 made an endorsemeni to the effect that he has no objection for passlng the order for mytual transfer, byt no actlon has been taken by the respondent No.2. However, on 27-1-2009 the respondent authoritiss oraily refused the petittoner to join the tralning on the ground that there Is shortage of attendance in spite of the fact that the petltioner feSI iii. The said act of the respondent authQritles is not •l^ sustainabie sn the eye of law because the-same has been done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4) S have heard iearned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pieadlngs and the documents appended thereto. 5) It appears that the petitioner has left the training instltute without permsssion 'of the competent authorifrjf oniy on the basis of appiic^ition for mutual transfer from DIET, Korea to DIET, Dharamjalgarh. There was no decision -on her application dated 20-9-2008 for mutual trarssfer. Even otherwise, unti! an order is passed on th©appJication that cannot be basis for remalning absent on any account. Even ifthe petitioner.feli ill, she ought to have taken permission of the competent authorlty b©foreleaving the trasning institute for a period of more thao four months, whi.ch resulted into shortage of attendance, the basic requirement for writlng examination. Once the requlrement of attendance in a trainlng course/ ex.atnlnatlon has been fsxed, there cannot be any diversion on any account Induding the slckness without pernrsission of the competent authorifr^- Thus, refusal oo the ground of shortage of attendance is just and proper. 6) !n view of foregoing, i do not find any reason to pass a direction as prayed for in this writ petitlon. AccordJrsgJy, the writ petitlon Is disnfiissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge