< 1 { 1 ag’laa //. IN1THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE A ILASPUR i §WRIT PETITmN (s) No/ @3 Qé of 2009 i I PETITIONER ‘ i r A VS 1.<// Sfate of through The Secretary,‘ P.L. Tar'war'e, son of Shri Sonelal Tqr‘war‘e, aged 52 years, Occupafion-Ser’vice, presently pios’red as Training Superinfendenf, Indus’rr‘ial Training InSTi1uTe, Korba (CG) F Chha‘h‘isgarh, Technical Educm‘ion, Manpower Planning, Science & Technology Depar’rmem‘, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mon’rralaya, Raipur‘. .The Direc‘i‘or‘, Technical Educa'rion, Manpower Planning, Science & Technology Depari’men‘r, iaipur‘ (CG) 3. The Principal, Indusfr‘ial Training InsTiTuTe, Korba. 4. K.L. Vishwakarma, son of Training InsTiTu‘le, Kusmi, Disirici Surguja (CG) g/ l $lnglo genoh ) Q#U kc” RESPONDENTS no? known fo the pe’ri’rioner, occupation— service, Training Superintendent presenfly pog’red af Indus'rrial ; :WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH E ‘ u 1 £ i ! W343) No. 333M2009 ' \ PETITIONER - . P‘L.’I‘arware HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR SB ': HON’BLEVSHRI JUSTICE PRETINKER D!WAKER Versus RESPONDENTS State of CG. 85 Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TI‘IE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Apearance: ’ p Shri Rajeav Shrivastava, coun$elffor the petitioner. Shm' Sumesh Bajaj, GAJwith Smt‘ Smita Ghaj, PL. fer the Stats. oRAL ORDER (13.07.2009) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 330.06.3009 passed by the, respondent No.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Industrial Training Enstitute Korba to industrial Training Institute, Samri (Kusmi), Distt. ‘ Surguja. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in his v present place of posting he has not completed his normal tenure of three years and the order impugned has been issued just to accommodate respondent No,4 who has been transferred in place of the petitioner on his own request On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that let the petitioner make a representation to the respondent No.1 and the same would be decided in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No.1 ithin a period of ten days from the date of receipt of this order and in the eventuality of‘making any such representation, the ame would be decided expeditiously within a period of three eeks frorn the date of its receipt. 1 Pritink‘er Diwaker i t . Judge ‘5» > ' Sd/-’ /_ ; w s w