7 0/34m @ $éng3za Qamh IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. MZQA OF 2011 / PETITIONER Smt. Shashi Gupta, Aged about 30 years, W/o Shri Vishal Gupta Occupation - Service Working as I” Auxiliary Nur’se Midwife at Sub-Health Centre “M Dharampur under Community Health Centre Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, R/o Viliage Kirta, Police Station Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VERSUS Q" $0 RESPONDENTS if: State of Chhattisgarh, Through SeCretary, $¢K§6 Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Health ‘ and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh . Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Pratappur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh / 5. Smt. PUShpalat Gupta, Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, Primary Health Centre, Kalyanpur, Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6. Ku. Khushbu Sahu, Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Community Health Centre, Wadrafnagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE t t l m u I a WWW m“ mmr tr m a WWWmoWmmmwmmmWit/mmmmmmmmwmmmmmwmmamalgmlawmmuwmmmmmwmm . \M w 3V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4221 OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Shashi Guma Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present 2— Shri R.N. Marhas, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 02““ day of August, 201 1) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier transferred E1 July. 2010. which was given effect to in September, 2010. Now the petitioner has again been transferred without compieting one year of service. 2‘ Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s husband is also posted as Constable in the original place of posting and as such, under the transfer policy of the State Government, they should be posted together. 3. This issue has already come into consideration before this Court in so many cases. wherein it has been observed that if both the husband and wife are working in the same place, there is no restriction in transferring one to another place. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make representation to the authorities. If the representation is already pending, the petitioner may pursue the same, if so advised. 4. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any malafide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order was vioiative of statutory rules and regulations. 5. ln view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty, if so advised. Sd/—' Satish K. AgnihOtri ashok Judge I» '