^^^^^^:?^^-'s;S^^^S?^'i^^-i-- -SWSQ 3SW& <f.f= fVD. IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.No. /06 Zsy PETITIONER .k./-'^^ ^^•^•^ ^iS^ ,/--^^^/-- ^•"' A^ >~>-\> ^'\.i»s5"' ^ ..•^'"'' •^•y i<;v ^ Smt Kamla Bhagat, ^ W/o Shri S.R.Bhagat, Aged about 38 Yrs. Shiksha Karmi CIass 3, Presently posted at, Primary School Paaker Gaon, BIock Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENT ^ .^ c^ ^, ^^ ^ \p t-- 0^'$? 1. StateofC.G.^ Through : Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ChiefExecutiveOfficer,'' District Panchayat Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Block Education officer •- Lailunga District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, WRITS. ORDER, DIRECTIONS ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt_ fetition No._5236_of_2QQ6 Petitioner: Smt. Kamla Bbagat Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & otiiers inde Bench; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Ajeailiotri. Shri Maaish SIianna, Advocate &r the petitioner. Sfari Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the Respondents No. l and 3. None for tbe lesjxindent No.,3. O R DE R ( 3rd October, 2006) The foUowiag orier ofthe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, who was eniployed as Shiksha Karmi Giade-III aod was working at niiddle school Pokdega, was transferred vide order dated 27.2.2006 (Annexiire P/3) to Pi-imary School Pakargaon. Thefeafter, vide orcler dated 23.6.2006 (Annexure P/l), along with several other Shiksha Karanis/Assistant Teachers, the petitioner was transfenTed to iniddte school Pokdega. At tSiis sfage leanied coiinsel for tlie petitioner confines bis subi-nission to a direction to the iT-spondents/antliorities for considering the representation of the petitioner, pending before tbe i-espondent No.2. 2. I have lieari leamecl counsel for the petitioner and perused flie petition and annexures appended thereto. The impugned transfer order seeins to be a routine transfer ou adininistratwe exigency. It is well established. principle of law that the Court should refrain frciin iiiterfering with t3ie transfer onder which is passed in public interest as weU as adininisti-ative exigency. This Court can iaterfere only in fhe case of proved inatefide, non-coinpetence of authority passing the treuisfer order and transfer oider is passed conti-ary to the statutoiy rules, regulations, circular etc. It is not a case where. any of the grounds, as stated above, has been alleged by the petitioner. Thus, thei'e is no merit in the case. 3. In view offhe foregoiag, the petition is disinissed. However, in the facts and circuinstaiices of the case, the i^spondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the peading application dated 17.7.2006 (Annexui^ P/4) in accoiidance with law, on its own merits, preferaWy within a period of three weeks frovi fhe date of i-eceipt/production ofacopy ofthis orier. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur