^ (U^-\'z^f m m THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR fW.P. fS) No. ...^.[,CA.^......./09) PETITIONER Chhat Ram Sahu S/o. Shri Parasu Ram Sahu, Aged about - 41 Year, R/o Village - Matiya, Block - Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENDS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ^^' ,^M^ ^^^y o^ £^€^ y^y ^y^ Through; Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. TheDistrictEducationOfficer, Tah & Distt.Jtai^S(C.G.) The ChiefExecutive Officer 3. Jila Panchayat Raigur (C.G.) |lMI-(:Ut WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA The petitioner named above "respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1 PERTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title 2. JPARTICULARSOFTHE^ESPONDENTS: . As mentioned in the cause title .I'.lttSttl^^^^^i •EeS" ^SsaSitlSMelkiW^^sfSeiSSV ^' (!i> HIGH COURTOFCHHAT'nSGARH : BILASPUR . WRlTPETmON ) N0.6498 ORZOOa ' PETITIONER ehhatRamSahu ; Versus RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarhandothere (Writ petition under Artictes 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hort'ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present:- Shri S. D. Singh, counsel for the peUtioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon thislO'" day ofNovember, 2009) With the consent of leamed counsel forthe parties, the peUtion was heard finally. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by orderdated 09-10-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executjve Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipurt passed in representation filed by the petitioner, pursuant to theorderdated 19-08-2009 passed by Uiis Court in W.P.(S.)No.4459 of2009. The petitioner has eariler approached this Court by filing W,P.(S)No.4459 of2009 impugning the transfer order dated 06-08-2009. Vide order dated 19-08-2009, on the request of leamed-counsel appearing for the petitjoner, the petition was dismissed as withdratni with liberty to file a representation before the concemed authorities. It was ftirther directed that in the event, a represerttation is made by the petitioner, the same may be decjdedwithin a period of three weeks from the dateofitsreceipt.Therepresentationfiledbythttpetitionerwas dismissed on the ground that theorder was passed strictly in accgrdance with the ratlonalizatjon scheme in public interest on account 6f atfminisfratiye exigency. (3) I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and thgfcdocumentsappended thereto. This Court is ofthe view that there is no in'egutarity or illegality or unreasonableness in the order impugned herein. (4) It is welt-settled that transfer is an incidenceof service antf it is for the employer to decjde asto where a particular ofRcer/employee be ppsted, keeping in viewpublic interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court 'y lini tw'l IM.I.IIS osi.oossaooz),, 0/Z33S e(9661)e sfsoosfrCfrooe); soos(fr)frzsi.i •nw a8pnj> Woqingv^qspBg -/PS •tisst! aBeis uo»ouieyi IB psssiiusip si tusui 10 pioAep Buiaq uogsad 941 'BuioBsjoi siflio MSIA u| (9) •siqeuoiideoxaun si jspjo psuBndtU! SIB 'sniii •soi/uss y> Mueppui ue si u inq lusiuysiund e iou si je^suejt 84»'esuvuoiflo ueAg (g) •^sjsino'? "d 'n y sws 'A pBtUMV pooseifti •p40|ft| pue sisi)to pue Ajno»•s •s "A wittoue pue •d 'W P aiets 'yisqioue 'g tfteuBqsa ueqpjeuer •A jetnoue pue ejpui puoiun • jaiftoue pue npBN IIUJBI p aie»s•A eddBAoy •d •3 ssS) 'Aoue&xe sAitejisiuiutpe pue isaisiui oiiqnd ^o MSIA ui eoe|d jeinojped e }e esAoidiue ue »sod 01 sjemod oift ||e sey jsAo|duje 'saim aoiMss p suoisiAojd eifl jspun •J8A9J01aoeid euo ie UIBUISJ oipsntuusd sqlouueoseAoidtue/jsuoBBed si|l •suoBeinBaj pueseim syl M}! ^juujo^uoo ui Buieq tou puB japjo Js^sueji aift Buissed Aiuoiffne 10 sauaisduioo-uou 'spueieui psAojd y) sosBo ein ui idsoxa 'jsnBUi JSJSUBJ} ein tfluiA sja,Ma|U! ai uoipipsunf paiiuiiiseq sueiuni -~L->