IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s1 No. zivQG . [2009 \ \ PETITIONER Smt. Rajmati —biEas Bhagat Kalyanpur, Tahsil Service, R/o Village Surguja (C. G.) Surajpur, Distt. VERSUS i State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Welfare ry, Women and Child Department, D.K.S. Development Raipur (C.G.) Bhawan, Child The Deputy Devel Secretary, Women 85 Bhawan, Raipur Department, (C. G.) D.K.S. The Director, , aged abou N \ RESPONDENTS: 1) he Secreta Welfare opment and Secial (C.G.) Development Department, Women 85 Raipur Child The Collector, Ambik Surguja (C.G.) apur, Distt. The Project Officer, Women 85 Child Development, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Surajpur, f3“ 604,0} xx‘m‘h:\ WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE-226 OF INDIA OF THE / ® mmwPLQNmzcyognm MW(W§&) (Annexure—P-4). Vide order jated 47.2008 the petitmner wha is working as Supervisor in The Women & Chm Deveiopmem Depariment was transferre from Surajpur; Distt. Sarguga t0 Kusmi, Distt. Surguja. This e der was assaiied by ihe psiiiigner in the writ petiiion (S) N0582f2i'2ii8 {Amexure P—S) and ihe said neiiiion was dispmsed of by this .Caurt 0n 18.1 0.20138 giving iiberty i i i i'o the Detitioner i0 iiie representation. Pursuant to the order or” i ihis Court, ine petitianer has fiied a representation and the said representatien has been rejected vide impugned order dated 66209:? (Annexure PA}. Contention of the oounsei for the petitiener is that transfer order has been issued in oompiete vioiation of the transfer poiicy and theretore the Authority concerned shouid have canceiieo the same while deciding representation of the petitioner. i r , seems we H r an:m W i % aim saw i S B' HGN’ELE JU$T§CE Ni PRITENKER WWAKER 23$7—2WQ: Mr; J.K. Shastrii counse3 for the peiitioner, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respcmdems. Chai§enge in the msta 1t writ petitim’z is to the ordam dated 4.12008 (Annexure—PJ) and order daied 66.20% XIVHC~78 m am! m {Wm wwzman VI am 33%?! W WM§WW “2;” 375%%mm w cansidered an i‘he aspeds as no megality in the ordez’ dated i do not find any iiiegatity in the impugned arder dated 6.6.2009 passed by responc‘ent N0; 1 as the iransfer is an inddence ef sewice. Acccrdingiyi the petition is wiihgut substance and thefefcre it i stage iiseif. On the other hand; ieavned counsei fer the State submtts that while deciding the repretsentatien, authority concerned has ”aised by the pei‘itionei' and there is 56.2009. s; hereby dismissed at the motien Sdl- Pritinker ‘Biwaker Judge A u m—,..,, dwaww, ,4“ \_