IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. HH^ OF 2011 PETITIONER ^^ ^>^y'\y ,...-:^-y ^-'^' ...-•'" •^- RESPONDENTS Smt. Kalmati Prasad, Wife of Bishram Prasad, aged about 44 years, working on the post ofA.N.M. (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) Resident of Village Bardar, Post Bardar, Tahsil Balrampur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS : 1.-- State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) d;f 3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As given in the above cause title. ^'i):5| "^. • If^JiBBIi. § *^.^ f ashok i COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETiTION (S) N0. 4423 OF 2011 PETITSONER Smt. Kalmati Prasad Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Slngie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, j. Present:- Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER ("ORALi (Passed on this 08 day of August, 2011) 1. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Auxiliary Naursing Midwifery, posted at Sub Health Centre, Bardar, Tahsil Balrampur, has been transferred to Sub Health Centre, Chhatrang, Odagi on administrative grounds. Shri Pandey, further submits that the husband of the petitioner is also a government servant working on the same place on the post of Headmaster at Govt. Primary School Banour, Block Balrampur. Thus, in view of the transfer policy of the State, which prescribes that as far as possible, the husband and wife must be posted at the same piace, the petltioner ought to have been posted at the nearest piace of posting of her husband. 2. This issue has already come intoconsideration before this Court in so msny cases, wherein it has been observed-that if both fte husband and wife ars working in the same place, there is no restriction in transfemng one to another piace. However, liberty is reserved to the petiiioner to make representation to the authorities. If the representation is atready pending, the petitioner may pursue the same, "fso advised. 3. There is no aliegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any matefide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order was violative of statutory rulesand regaiations. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid libertv, ifso advised. Sd/- - '.-Satish K.Agnihotri Judge .;,,<,!