^\VA->^^ .-rl»^:" ^s}- •i.ef'-'' c^- \c^7 //--" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRrLPETITION(S) No. ^~V62- OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vipin Raj Walia, Aged 49 years, S/o Late Shri J.S. Walia, Occupation Sen/ice, presently posted as Sub-lnspector in District Crime Record Branch (Non-District Executive Force) Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent of Police, District Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT ORWRITS !N THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, _CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE ( 'SM!S-sS^^i9 ^ HiGHCOURTOF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Single Benchs Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J, WRIT PETiTiON fSi N0.2762/2010 PETiTiONER ?? S: ^ S-4^"YE. •?~<1?~ Ss ?'V ir- KlcSi-i-'niUfcni i S Vipin Raj vv'alia Versus State of Chnattisgai'h and others l"S»..^.Wt-f<i^.- _ Cli->«-S r\Iinn^n: L/, linnx-''-//--»3/t»n fj". nnl.n^.ni ^ni>-5.n^* nn-i.;^; n n *^. rTsseni; • onri uussraj r\umar vanKHSGG, courissi ror iric pdiiioncf. Smt. Smita Ghal. Panel Lawyer for the State. QRAL.ORpEi fPassed on 18 June.2010) r-iearo. i nis is ine secona rouna 01 iiiigaiion. 3. Eariier, aggrieved by transfer order dated 7/11/09, by 'which the petiiioner was transferred from Raipur to KanKer, a writ Petiuon was preferreo. vjde oreier dated 14/12/09, the VVrit Petition 'vvas disrnissed. Aggrieved by the saiu order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeai in whlch an order was passed on 1/2/10 aiiowirig ihs petltioner to vv'ithuravr' the appeai vvith lib&rty io pursu® his representation for sympathetic reconsideration of hls transfer. Thereafter, ihe petitionei' preferred a repi'esentation vvhich has been rejected, by impugned order uated 18/05/10 (Annexure P-2'i. 4. Subrnission of learned counsei for the petiuoner is that petitioner is not keeping w'eii. He was examined by the Medicai Board and the medica! opinion records iiiness on the part ofthe petitioner. ft is, fherefore, subrnitteu that on this grouna responaeni auinoriiies ougni 10 nave canceiiea tne iransTer OT peiiuoner and allowed hlrn to continue at the present piace of postina. Further subrnission r "h. /€"^"\ h fc-.' i lk 'v' % 1 '•1\ ^ y / 'u ia~-^" .f '•:?S<tew-»at'1' of learned counsei for the pstiuoner is that there is violation of the transfer poiicy dated 29/05/08 (Annexure P-10) in as much as there was ban on transfer anci no ti'ansisi' couiu be made during the period of ban, excspt in accordance with the procedurs in coordination prescribeu unuer Clause 16 of the aforesaiu transfeiT poiicy. It is further submitted that the adminisuative exigency no longer exists and on representatlons made by severai ofiicers, representauons vrere consiuered and aiiowed anu the uansfei' orders were cariceiieu. 5. Last submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that, from the pei'usai of the impugned order rejecting representation, it is ciear that respondents fuliy knew abuut the physicai condition snd iiSness of the petitjoner yet he has buen transferred to do uelu 'vvork in naxalite area. ^ s^vss' Per contra, submission of learned counsei for respondsnts Is that transfer is an incidence of service. it is aiso subrriitted that chaiienge to th®rejectiori of the transfer order was consiuered by this Court in the firsf rounu of iltigation and the grounds raiseci hsre 'vvere aiso considered and this Gourt carfle to the conciusion that the transfer order does not suffer from any iliegality so as to warrant Interferencs under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of India. it is further argued mat the petitioner had witndra'wn iiis Writ Appeal v»ith libsity to maks representation foi" symDatiieuc reconsideration. it is subniiiied that i'epresentation of the petitioner was considered and taklna into consideration the administrative exlgency existing, representation was rejscteu observ'ing tnat 'w'ork rnay be taken -i'rom ine peiiuonei' in view 01 ine meuicai repon. 7. Having considered the submlssions of iearned counsei for the parties, it te ctear that tne petiiionet' 'was uansterreu on csrtain aumjnisuative ex'igency vifhtCn ~'\ ^ ..<'?' &y cieariy Tinds place in the irnpugneu orders 01 rejection of tne represeritation. Submission of learned counsei 101' the petitioner that the uansfer vioiates certaln guideiines and therefore iiabis to be inteiiereu with, cannot be accepted. it is weii seiiiea inai aarninisirauve guiue lines oo.noi proviue any grouna 10 cnaiienge the order of transfer ii it otherwise does not suffer uorn any illeyaiity or maiaiides. From ths impugned order, it is aiso reveaieu that the rnediai rsport in respect of ine peiiiioner nas usen laKen inio corisiaerauori ana cesiain ooservacions nave been made with regaru to manner In tvhich services of the petltloner have to be utilized. Last submisslon of leamed counsei for the Dfiutionef is uiat In other cases representauon has been considered and transfer order has ueen canceiied. Suffice to sav, that each case has its ov»n mei'its. facts and cireumstances. Vtfithout any matsi'iai basis, there is no parameter for this Court to decide as to in vvhich case the t'epresentation should oe ailowed and In whlch case ine sarne snouiu ue reiecieu. 8. Consequentiy, i do not find any merit In this case. The petition is therefore uisrnisseu. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge