@ ‘ CH. Gedam, 51 years, Sic. KR. Gedam, AG—1 in 0/0. Joint Director, Fisheries, Dept, Raipur HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘TEGARH: EILASPUR Writ Petition (S3 No. 4060i28§7 PETiTiONER Versus RESPCNDENTS 1) S'ecmtary, State of Chhaitisgarh, Departm ent. through of Fisheries, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2) Smt. Kanak!ata Dhrve, AG—1 in Burg Ole. Dy. (CG). Directcr, Fisheries Dept, (Writ Petition under Aiticie 226 of the SB: Hon’bie Mr. Justice Satish K Present: Shri SEri AS. Raj§§iiarma Kac counse: for the peiitioner. Constituiion of india) . Agnihctri No. 1 lState. hhawaha, Govt. Advocate for responcient R DRaER {Passed an 13"? Jug, 2am The petiiioner working as Assistanf Grade i, in the Office of Joint Director, Fisheries, Department, Raipixr, vide order daied 29-6~2007 (Annexure 53/1) has been transferred to the Office of Deputy Director, Fisheries, LEV. Department, Durg, due to administrative reasons. 2) Learned counsei appeering for the petitioner questions 2007 (Annexure PM) on the grou impugned order dated 2&6- t'ne vaiiciity of the transfer order is bad and unreasonabie as the same has been pas nd that this sed in order transferred from the r to accommodate the respondent No.2, who has been office of Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, Durg, to the Office of Joint Director, Fisheries Department, Raipur, where the petitioner was working. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner further submits that it appears that M her transfer was made on her representation as the remark indicates on her own expenses. There is nothing more than that. Learned counsel further submits that the transier between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 from the office of Joint Director, Fisheries Department, Raipur to the Office of Dy. Director, Fisheries, Durg, is contrary to the transfer poiicy. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner has not specihed any clause of the poiicy which, according to him, has been vioiated. The seif same statement made by teamed counsei for the petitioner is not supported by any document except that the order itseit indicates that the petitioner was transferred to accommodate the resoondent No.2. 3) i have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and documents appended thereto. There is no infirmity, iiiegality or jurisdictionai error in the impugned order. The order is passed in pubtic interest due to administrative exigency. 4) it is welt settled principie of taw that under Artioie 227 of the Constitution of india, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the grave faiture of justice or grave injuries has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irreguiartty or iitegatity in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 5) As a resuit and for the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. Sdl- raiu Satish K. Agnihotri Judge