@6/ $RNGLE BENCH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.1sl No. 5am [2011 / RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 1% CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W PETITIONER : Smt. Usha Verma, W/o Shri Dilip Kumar Verma, aged about 45 years, R/o Bhilai—3, North / Vasundhara Nagar, Bhilai—3, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (v ”9 w ”8 /‘\.‘..u posted as Women Health Worker at Primaly Health $5 \0’ Q' " w qp g5‘ Centre, Bhilai—3 (Patan), Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS /V RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. {The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) / 4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) HEGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH : BILASPUR r7 WRIT PETIT!ON (S) No. 5424 GF 2011 CWrii Petition under Amcie 226 of ihe Constitution of Kndia) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satis‘n K‘ Agni'notrL J. ?resent :— Shri BPSmgh, Advocate for ihe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the Stare. ORDER (ORAL) {Passed en this 15‘ day oi $eptember, 2011) aShOK SATISH K. ANGNH‘IORI l Judge DETiTiONER Smi. Usha Verma Versus RESPONDENTS State 0f Chhattisgarh (3: Oihers 1. Chaiienae in this oeiition is io ihe order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure ihe Woman Heaiih Worker at P-1), vvheregy, peiiiioner working as Primarv Health Centre, Bniiai-3 (Fatah), has been transferred to Sub Heaith Centre, Pacheda (Dondi), on administrative grounds. 2. Learned caunsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer potioy dated 131052011 (Annexure P-Z), it ie ciearty stated that the Cotieotor atone is competent to transfer the emptoyees belonging to CiassJH it iV services on proposai made by the other departments in approvat of the minister in-charge. 3. in the case on hand. it appears that the Chief Medicai & Health Officer, Durg, without foiiowing the guidelines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned district. on proposai oi' the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the detect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainabie in the eves of law. 4. As a result. the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P—t) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law, in administrative extgency and in public interest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent.