1 STZ3- (^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT^ILASPSR W. P. (S) N0. 3556 / 2009 PETITIONER ^A. D. Dani, S/o Shri R. L. Dani, aged about 48 years, presently worktng as Incharge Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineerin^ Service Sub-Division, .. Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarhj VERSUS RBSK)NDENTS ^v?^-.. ^.^./^-•:"'../--" ....<;^?--""' ,^5.^ , T^-""" ^ 1) State of Chhattisgarh — through the Seeretary, Panchayat . and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2)' The Additional Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department,,DKS Bhavan, Raipur (G.G.) WRIT PETN'ION UNDER ARTICLE^226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA —78 sn^i qgftgw '?TBff 3H^T sfrtfltft* ^!-'. T '3'^ -lii'i<i<-)Ai, ©-aly'is,Tqwi'yy J.:.£..C5>.2)Z^J. WNtWtBW^ 3(!^r •VR; ('^qf'p^ET) 200^ iRaiwaitff sn^ii Shri P.R.Patankar, Shri Suiaesh Bajaj, G. fhe State. cou^isel for the petitioner. .4. wifh ShriArvind Dubey, P.L. for Grievance of fhe petj 29.6.2009 (Annexure P/l) Incharge Assistaat Engineer] division Raipur, district Raip^u- Panchayat, Manora as Sub E| Itioner is that vide order dated (he petitioner who is workiag as lin Rural En.Kiaeerulg Service Sub has been transferred to Jaupad tiguieer. caanot be transferred. He| permitted to witlidraw ttie pij issued for deciding fhe repre; not be relieved from. his presi q)i<<lCT<ii^ *ii*i<nf ^ fst<il^F»f^R ^affin3lA?t Contention of counsejl for the petitioner is that ftie petitioner is senior aad ther^fore the juiiior persoas cannot be raade as In. cbarge Assistac|t Engnieer aad to fhis effect the iovemm.ent has alreadv issutd the circular. He fiu-fher submits fhat ia. bis preseut place of ^iostiiig fhe petitioner has not even cfiiapleted one year and 04 fh.at grouiid also fhe petitioner also subinits fhat he aiay be isent petition wifb. a liberty to file representation to fhe respo^ideut No. 1 aiid direction niay be .enta.ti.on. so inade. 1 nt place ofposting. theu he may such repiesentation wifhin t Accordiagly, the peti.ti4n is disiaissed as withdrawn with ubert5r as afoi^said. In fhe ev^ntuality offhe peti.tioner's inakint :n days fi-oin the date of receipt of fhis order, tlie saiiie would'b^ decided by the authorities wifhin y« :h :!i; :U •e.caii aw* fsf"as*^,.'<x l,i 1 r iC—78 '•*ilB-.'£«^' afn^wspT Rt-ilcb WH oii^ff st>*iiq> B t: ^^ -s^.. ^ 's^ '*lMlcf*l, /aiTil'M'is, (S«?iiyi< ^,^^........fcJfl£5.1..^S^^^„ IWrtl **<!*" ~~ / tl'I.2( dll^l W* ('i'ilil*!^ ¥^<11<tt< «ffe(l/<H)^^l a period of fhree weeks fluiu. clanfied fhat tffl then the petiti|3E the preseDtgIace ofposting, ifn)3t Wifh. fhe above observatic of. tifiwfc'i^ft'l *<l*1d? ^f 'fe'^ ^^i< ^TaiSpiail^l tlie date of its receipt. It is ?ner shaU not be reUeved fixiin alreadv relieved. a, fhe petition stands disposcd Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge liilil :il Ijii-h l-c^'-— I !