era . :‘v‘fs"“ “mg“g Egmn 9 $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH W .P. No. 46%,é OF 200 w 4 %'umedlal 3 /'/ Jaiswal, S/o Shri Chainu HkQRam Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, '.‘-\",“..‘“..w°“°slock ...Q'WDistrict Bilaspur Education (CG) Officer, Lormi, // Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Deptt. Of School Education, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur District Education Officer, Bilaspur Distt Biiaspur (CG) ‘ RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE x CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _ MW‘PQ6OG m 200 9 mam (W) m mmfaia; wmm wwwiifm’rm $<§fauawlé¥t WWW 12.01 .2005: - Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for he petitioner‘ Shri-Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the St te/respondent. The petitioner who is a Block Ed cation Officer has tiled instant petition. He has been transferred to Govt. High chool, Mittu Nawagaon, Biiaspur vide order on annexure P/1 on administrati ,e grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is king as a Block Education Officer but he has been transferred to Govt. Hig School which has no post of Block Education omcer. He further submits th t he has been transferred withoutthere being any administrative exigency but o ly on the basis of political interference and to demonstrate this learned couns l has annexed annexure P/2 and P/3 wherein certain complaints have been ade by the Member of Parliament. He further submits that his wife isl’serviciag as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-ill in Govt. Primary School village-Ramhepur, Block Lormi. Learned counsel also points out certain irregularities in serial numbering fthe transfer orders. l have heard learned counsel for he petitioner and for the State and also perused the transfer order. From the perusal of the petition it ppears that the petitioner is working as a Block Education Officer since 2612. l and now he is posted at the present place of posting Transfer is an incidenc of service and the Apex Court has time and again held that they Court should ot interfere in the matters of transfer unless it is shown thathis prohibited or it has been done malafidely. in this regard; 2003 volume 4 SCC 31 04 is reli d upon by the State counsel. Considering the facts and circum tances of the case, i am of the opinion that the instant petition has no merits a d it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Sdl— DK-ERENDRA WM N”: G‘tLPRJ—‘FS/YE — B‘i’200t —50,000. I». y 3\ . 7V <X‘, @ r 2 ‘