HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ APPELLANT: Petitioner Writ Appeal No. 346 of 2009 R.M. Quraishi, son of late Rasool Mohammed Quraishi, aged about 54 years, Fisheries Inspector in the ofRce of the Assistant Director. Fisheries, Dhamtari, R/o in front of Anjuman School, Chameli Chauk, Aamapara, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Versus Resoondents 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Agriculture (Fisheries) Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) Director, Fisheries, Raipur (CG) Assistant Director, Fisheries, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Prakash Kekate, S/o not known, Fisheries Inspector in the office of Assistant Director, Kanker. District Kanker (CG) Present. Mr. M.K. Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALJUDGMENT (23raNovember,2009) PefDhirendfB M/sftra. J 1. This writ appeal is directed against ttie order dated 9th November, 2009 passed in WP(S) No.6461/2009 whereby the appellant's writ petition against his transfer order of Annexure-P/4 dated 29-6-2009 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is working as Assistant Fisheries Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Director. Fisheries Dhamtari. He was transferred to Kanker. He filed WP(S) No.3301/2009 and the same was disposed of reserving liberty to the appeltant to make a representation. Accordingly, the appellant filed a representation against his transfer order of Annexure-P/4 and the same was dismissed vide order of Annexure-P/9 dated 24-10- 2009 observing that the appellant is posted in his present place of posting as Fisheries Inspector since 1989 and because of his long posting he is misusing his political influence. He further submitted ^s^^ /^tM^'\ \ that the appetlant is suffering from heart ailment, he has undergone angioplasty surgery and there is no medical facility availabte at Kanker. He further submitted that the observation in the order of rejection of representation that the appellant mtsuses his political influence is without any substance. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order as also the order by which the appellant's representation has been rejected. 4. Taking into consideration that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in view of the settled princtptes of law in the matter of transfer and also considering that the appellant is continuously working in the present place of posting at Dhamtari since 1989, we are ofthe opinion that the impugned order js strictly in accordance with law. 5. Inthe result, the appeal is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. ——~- Sd/- Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge