C K % WOO ) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. 31mg 12011 PETITIONER /Vinod Deshmukh, S/o Shri G.R. Deshmukh, aged about 43 years, R/o Subhash Nagar Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) posted as Lab Technician at Supela Hospital Bhilaj, Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary Health U and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan‘, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) /3. The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) / 4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 1 L CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATT'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITICN (S) No. 5428 OF 2011 PETlTiONER Vinod Des‘nmukh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgam & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn‘ J. Present :- Shri B.P.Singh. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘“ day or September, 201 1) 1. Chatienge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), wherebby. the petitioner working as Lab Technician at Supeia Hosoitai Bhitai. has been transferred to Community Heath Centre, Dondi, on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer potiov dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to Ciass—ill & i'v’ services on proposal made by the other departments in approval of the minister in-oharge. 3. in the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Coliector has been assigned the responsibitity of transfer of the emptoyees Working in the concerned district, on proposal ot the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the detect of competence of the officer. Accordingiy, the transfer is unsustainabte in the eyes of law. 4. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-t) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law. in administrative exigency and in public interest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above—extent. Sdl- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge