HIOH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH, BILAOPim W.P. (81 IIQ.S648 of 2007 PBTITIOMER KBSPQNMSBmS 2 3 Vinod Kumw Tirkey, s/o Shri Julias Tirkey, aged about 28 years, Occupatioa Coastabte, r/o vfflage Badai Khana, P.S. Tahsfl & District Jashpur N^ar (C.O) Vvrsus The State Govcnunent of CIihattisgarh fhn>i^h fhe Secretaiy, Home Affairs, Police Department, D.K.S. Bhavaa, Raipiu-(C.G.) The Director General of PoBce, Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G) D.1.0. (Admitustration-2), PoUce Headquarters, Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETITION ONDBR ARTICLB 226 Of THE COHSTITOTKm OFIWDIA Aspearaace; Stui Piakash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivcdi, P.L., appcars fer fhe State/respondents, on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (2S.09.2007) 8CMIL KUMAR 8INHA. J. Heard. The bnef facts are that the petitioncr who is worldng as Constable was aUocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and after his joining ia Police Hcadquarters, Raipiir, he bas been posted in Distcfct Narayanpiir. BarBer to this petition, the pefitioner had fited another petition bearing W.P(S). No.4009/2007. When fhe said petafoa came up for hearing before the Siugle Bench of fhis court, it was only prcssed for a direction fhat the represcntation datEd 20.6.2007 (Aimextire P-1) be coasidered by the Department on humanitarian ground expeditiousty, iu accoidaace wifh law oa rts ^ ^--'"' si ^®"^^£S^a -S W.P.fSI No. 5648 ofWWT •^; ^: own mcrits, which was not opposed by learued State Couasei, It was allowed and alongwith that it was also directed that thc said representation shaU be disposed of witbia a period of two weeks aad the status quo with regard to fhe postiag of the petiticaier as obtained on 20.7.2007 shall be iiiaintaiaed tffl tfae disposal offhe representation. Accordmgty, fhe said petition was dfaposcd of. Leanied counsel for the petitioner submite fhat thercafter the orders on the representation have been passed on 25.7.2007 (Annexure P.6) and the representationof the petitioner has bcea disinissed. His submission is that lookiag to fhe personal difficulties the order may be interfered. I have consnlered fhe aiyunents advanced by teamed counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circuinstences of tfais case, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere ia flie transfer order of the petitioner at this stage when in the first Tound, this court has passed aa ordcr for consideration of the representation aad ia purs-uance of that order, the representatiou offhe petitioner has been considered aad orders have been passed by the department rejecting the representation. TIiis petition has no inerits. The samc is not worfh adinission and it is accordingly dismissed at the niotion stage. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fSaof