^e^l^ RR.^to. Presented by Sh^.<12.;A:^.fc^c^; dated.......:^^i.!.l.t^.^^,^_ ^s s. >••*••»f ^ IN THE HIGHCQURTQFJUDICATUREQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION N0. S£1"^1 /2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. -0< ./ ^y>J/^. '&< A&^'" €^' ^ 0^'~ "^o^ 0>^ 3. Hemant Kumar Verma, S/o - Shri Khemlal Verma, Aged about ~ 56 years, R/o - Gaagaram Nagar Ramkund Near Maharashtra Bhawan, TehsU & District - Raipur, (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, General Administration Deptt. Mantralya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Director, PubUc Instruction Department, Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITfS) OR ORDER(S) OR DIRECTION(S) '^^^^'y.^^ ;:[.•• ^^^^^'^^^^.Ni-^N'^l XI-HC-22 S^T^T ^wa^f w^^ ^-sr1 -^TFn^'4, "^tws. "^roy •WI^TWW^ _..^..P......-6::...^.22M' ^QO^ 200 ^ 3^T ^^TS^T ^tt^ ^rqfOTh-iw^f-^l^ Tf^c?K •^^if^T^ii^ 28.11.2005 Shri Vivek Rathore, Counsel f^r the petitjoner. Shri P.5. Koshy, Dy. Advocate ^eneral for- the State. The petitioner, who was i|yorkin9 as Head Master in ©overnment AAiddle School, Ramn^gar, Distt. Raipur has been transferred by order dated 31.10.^5 to Bilaspur*. The petitioner impugns thisorder on the ground -that circulardated 22.7.2005 Annexure P-2 provides that for co-orjelinatjon of the Chief Minister. proposal for trQnsfer of officers shoijild be sent after two months. In thepresent case, it does no^ appear from perusing papers of the case that any procedural laps^has occurred. Even otherwise circular dated 227.200 \s an inter^ial circujar for transfer of employees issued to the varjous fioyernment. The pefitioner has beej officers from the State |n trarisferr-ed on account of administrative exigency in co-ordinati<l>n with the Ghief Minister os is ciear fpom the transfer ordep Miich has been marked to Secretary of Chief Minister/©overr^nentof Chhattisgarh. The contention of the petitioner is un5ust4inable m law and deserves to be rejected. It is well settled thc|t in transfer matters, the constitutjonal Court ^hould refrciin transfer unless the same is passed c^ exercise of power or the tronsferring from interfering with the ^ntrary fo rules or malafide (authority has no competence -^ [•q^^fe^ XI-HC-22 ^"^" ^TPT^Fl. ?,.1:^?my 3:nt?r XT^? ^ ^ '^ ..a:>..T.:.^.0..^....5.5 2^\tl€)6^ •^sra^T%w^ "t*<*9 "^ ^oo 4U 3:[I^T'<^T l^t^^lT^T ^TTr^w^?r ^H^T 'i^HW^^ Y^. | r;T- to pass the order. There are noj such grounds rais^d in this petition. In view of the foregoing, the p^tition stands disrriissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '^i^I<rl4i'-l 'HR^ff ^ fe^t TT^R^R ^ ^m ^^ [^^fe^ ^