$ingie Emch IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmsGARH Ar BILASPUR w.P.[s] No. £1$§9 L29+9 2.0)) f Smt Augustino Tigga W/o MR. Tigga, aged about 45 years Woman and Child Development Officer, Paihalgaon Primary Dish‘. Joshpur [C.G.} PETITIONFR VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1f srafe of Chhaffisgarh , through the Secretary, Deparimem of Woman and Child deveropmenr Officer D.K.S.Bhowan,Raipur [C.G.] 2. The Collecfor, collectorafe Jashpur Disff. Jashpur [C.G.] 3. The Disfricf Projecf Officer , Woman and Child Development Jashpur Disfricf Joshpur [C.G.] I 4. '” The Projecf Officer , lnfegrafed Women & Children Developmenf Projecf Pafhal Goon, Dish‘. Joshpur [CG] WRIT PETlTiON A[U 226 [ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA “ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Neelkanth Malaviya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 12‘ day of August, 201 1) 1. Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure e P~1), whereby, the petitioner, working as Supervisor at integrated Child Development Scheme, Patthaigaon has been transferred to integrated Child Development Scheme, Manora, on administrative grounds. 2. The sole ground of challenge in this petition is that para 3 of the impugned order provides for no representation for consideration of the transfer, thus, the same is violative of fundamental right under the Constitution of India. 3. The service condition of the employees are governed by the rules and regulations, and if there is no statutory provisions for making representation, the petitioner cannot claim a right to make representation on the touch stone of the provisions of right to freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined under Atticle 19 of the Constitution of lndia. No service rules or regulation has been pointed out by the petitioner to indicate that against the order of transfer, which is an exigency of service, the empioyee can make a representation. Thus, it cannot be held that by stating in the transfer order that no representation shall be entertained in respect of the WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4559 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Augustina Tigga Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others transfer order, the fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. No other legally permissible grounds have been raised by the petitioner warranting interference with the transfer order. Thus, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. However, if petitioner intends to make a representation to the authorities, the authorities may consider the same in accordance with Iaw on its own merits and pass the appropriate order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the above-stated observation. No order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. AgnihOtri Judge I V s @