@gk? ‘ 697K iiij‘I-IE HON'BLE HIGH CQ’EE‘T OF CHHATTISGA§iH AT BILASPUR mi? pETUION No. Mggfgzvuof 2002 ‘ PETITIQNER : Kumar Ram Nagesh aged 56 year son 9% late Basan Kumar, Caste Gamda (Sbbedule caste) working as Assistant Tegcher, Primary Schcol, Kunderapani Block office Mainpur, Disit.£iaipur. , Sta’te of Chhattisgarh Thiough— The Secretary School Education Departmen‘t 13.i{.S. Bhawan G.E. Road fiaipur. Commissioner Adim Jati Anusuchit Jati, Pichhda Verg evem Alp - Sankhyak Kalyan wibhag, Raipur. 3) Block office Education Officer Adiwasi Vikas Khand, Mainpur ,_..sDistt. Boipur (C.G.) pETi’rioN UNDER ARTICLE ‘ééé or CONSTITUTIONOP INDIA,‘ $ J W Shn' H.B. Agarwal, counsel Shn' Ranbir Singh, Govt. Adv. for the State. Though this matter is list: admission, on the prayer of 1e with the consent of State couns at the admission stage. The grievance of the wn‘t pé dated 29-10-2002. Cancellation of the transfer on the ground that as he is Hemipligia 8a Phuris left axm and Government Hospital, Dev Bhc therefrom will greatly inconvenie order is sought by the petitioner swering from Hyper Tension, , left leg and taking treatment at tg, Distt. Raipur, his transfer challenge 1's that the transfer is i nce to him. Another ground of since no other teacher has been students of the instituh‘on Will be To begin with, it may be s ted that transfer is an incidence - f ervice and person who holds hansferable post cannot object for the petitioner. id for heating on the question of ed counsel for the petitioner and , the matter is being disposed of u the mid academic session and osted in his place, the studies of ected V 00< V—50,000. \ \ “Z..— a ttitioner is to the order of transfer mmM/Nd..jj H1200 2, am 311%?!m amtm (W) mafiam ' WWm ‘2’! fa?W % aifcm amt 22-01—2003 ‘ W/ ”Aggy; WW .mm (W) mmm ,_— w! to his transfer, as it is Within the jurisdiction of the employer to determine as to where a particulz Lr employee should or should not be posted. However, there may [be some cases of transfer which may be examined by the Court and these would normally be the @ WWW «Imma- WM§§€IW %3if‘cmal%m cases whem an employee has bee n subjected to nequent transfers or the transfer is bv wav of ha 1 paxticular person by bringing hjJ that person was tmnsferred and had joined that particular p1a< incumbent. Interference may be rassment or to accommodate a n back to the place nom Where sending out the incumbent who :e of transfer of the previous justined in cases of malande or infraction of any proposed norins or principles. Where career l prospects remain una.&'ectcd and 1 10 detriment, is caused challenge to transfer ought not to be entertained. Thus the challenge to an order of iransfer in the opinion of the Court, is to be considered 1n ., the above background. In the case at hand, the transfer order is assailed on the of a teacher in the place of the ground of illness and non—posting the matters, which could have. petih'oner. Obviously, these are the authorities by way of a been brought to the notice of /200( -—50,000. (r swarm (Wu) mm Sim! z, 3 WW§WW *— '§T aimm r c / \v: p GRt representation. On being asked these facts to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner drew Annexure P-6, being a copy of the Member of Parliament, which the considered by the department. states that a representation was ut that was not entertained. presentation is not before the ‘ In the above View of the matte etitioner submits a flesh representation gainst his transfer the same shall spondent Within a period of two e representation. If so advised tie py of the earlier representation.‘ e Court is not expressing any titionerJs case and that representation e oncerned authority on its own Whether the petitioner had brought appropriate authority, learned “.he attention of the. Court to representation addressed to a Court feels was rightly not Lemned counsel for the petitioner addressed to the respondent No.2 Thus admittedly, a proper appmpriate authority. r, it is directed that in case the to the respondent No.2 be- considered by the said weeks hem the date of receipt of petitionertmay also attach a lt is, however, made clear that opinion on the merits of the will have to be decided by merits. a, bl a V 90(-—50,000. XI-HC—78 3%: mm, m, mam m wmm MWn's‘a 'I‘o'r' fBe pe$onef that pending consideration of . Msfer may Be stayed. In reply attnntion of th€ Court to Annexu petiiionei‘ has éhcady been relieV inten'm order, m the circumstanc will, however, be open to the St question of permitting the petitio preeent place where he was pos session. wmw—mm*_ g g ,;_ 1 sfahds disposed of. Conseque interim relief& IA No. /8381/2O \ disposed of. Ceru'fled Copy as per Rules. nay M.W.P. No.1740/2002 for )2 for urgent hearing also stand his representation the order of , learned State counsel drew the re P-7, which indicates that the. red. Hence the quesh'on of any es of the case, does not arise. It ate Government to consider the ner to discharge his duty at the *ed till the end of the academic n ,nin i W I With aforesaid observatiotrs and dilech‘on, this petition