^ ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petitioa (Sj No. 6149 of2007 PBTITIONER Devendra Kumar Shanna, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Shri Raiaaaaud Sbarma Assistaat Director/Sam Pariksha Adhikari, Paachyat aad Social Welfare Department, Directorate Raipur, District Raipur(CG) Versus RE8PONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe Secretary Paachyat aad Rural Development Departmeat, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 State of Chbattisgarh Through tlie Secretaiy Panchyat and Social Welfare Departnient, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(CG) 3 The Prmcipal Secretaiy General Adiamistration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipiu~(CG) 4 The Joint Secretary Paachyat and Rural Developnient Department, DKS Bhawan, Maatralaya, Raipur (CG) 5 The Director Pauchyat and Social Welfare Department, Directorate, DKS BIiawan, Maatralaya, Raipur(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA Appearance: Shri J,N. Nande, coiuisel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael for the State on advaace copy. ORAL ORDER (17.10.2007) SUNIL KCMAR SINHA. J. Heard on adinission. The petitioner, who is working on fhe post of District Auditor, has been posted at District Paachayat Office, KaaJker on ^ W.P.No.(S)6149of2007 adiuuustrative grounds. The order is dated 28.9.2007(Axuiexure P/,7). Learaed couxisel for the petitioner argues that previously the petitioner was working as C.E.O., Jaapad Paachayat, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon aad on 26.9.2006(Aiuuexure P/4), he was brought to Raipur aad fhe.reafter, he has been posted at Kanker. He subinits fhat fhis is a frequent action agamst the petitioner. I have considered fhe poiat raised by leamed counsel for tfae petitioner. The arguinent is inisconceived. A perusal of the order dated 26.9.2006 would show that after repatriation, fhe petitioner was posted at Raipur and thereafter, a fresh postiag has been given to tiim for Kaiiker, fherefore, fhis would not amount to frequent traasfer. Jn fact, this is a postuag after the repatriation. In the facts and circiunstances of this case, fhere does uot appear to be any inalafide, extraaeous consideration or violation of any statutoiy Rule or the Act in fhe inatter of the petitioner. The petition has no merits. The sauie is disinissed at the motion stage itself. —-^— —___ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita ^