c<^>/°€3 II-l'HE_HIGH_GOmT_OF,JUDICATU _AT_BILASpm._ICH:^ I* ^ milF_i>ITITIQN__Ho,,_J-?:8^-:OF_2003 /' PBTIl'IONER: ..^*- TV' ..-•^e^- ^>:1.^^^ '^*r:::^ HBSPOgDEITS : M<iP»ITagdeo^ aged aboufc 44 years^ ^ son of Sri Bahaddur Ram, Assistant Teterinary Area Officer^Teterinaiy Hospital, Turna,dist.Am&3^«pur(C.G) ^g^Ti $> Vs» 1. State of Chhattisgarh:Through: Secpetary, Yeterin^ry Department^ D.'K. Bhawan, Raipuz^ (C<G). ^••^ ,':^,. ^^ <rw ^ y .y' ^^y ^" 2. Deputy Director^Veterinary Services^ Am'bikapur (C«G), 3* Janardhan Dubey, Assistant Veterinary Area Officer^Veterinary Hospltal/ Kpdn3a,dist^Aml5ikapur (C<»G)» ':';" £T_ra;TITIGN,UHD@B_ARIICI^ ,226/22^,0? _T _CONST!I®UTION OF INMA. ^' XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^ri^sn^r 9FW^^T 3:^?qT^n^T, ^<rl<i®,{°«nwi< ^ qTO^rTS^ra 3?T^Tq5|eh ^..u..p...^.0.'..'.7.^ ^ 3TT^T?^ITW;R^ q,ra^Ffrrw^r^te^t^^ ^srf^TW^T 29.3.2008 Smt. Anju Ahuja, co^insel for fhe petitioner. Shri AkhU Agrawal, |Paael Lawyer jfor fhe State/respondents no, 1 aad 2, None for respoudent |a.o,3, I.A.No.5354 of2003 fpr urgent hearing is aflowed. The petitioner has ^haUenged the validily of order dated 24.2.2003 (Amiexiirc P-1) ^y which he was directed to discharge his duties ia Veterinaxy Ho^pital at Kedma. The mipugiied oxder shows that rcspondent no^ who was workbig at Kedma was also dirccted to dlscharge his du^ies in Vetermaiy Hospital Tuma fhat is to say fhat fhe places of d^ities of bofh fhe petitioner as weU as respondent no,3 have beej^i changed by fhe mipugned order vi<^ verscL Tbis petition cos^e up for hearmg before fhis Court 0x1 23.6.2003, The Deputy Adv<^ate General took aotices on behalfof >t respondents no. 1 and 2 ^hereas fhe notices were sent to respondent no,3, So far as flie State is concemed, no retum has been filed tHl date. Respond^nt no,3 is ateo uxirepresented fhongh he has been served» XI-HC-22 s^T^Tpn^T, ^Tf1^1i<o, f®icni<M^< ^o ^n^T^r {^TT^3:n^T ^TT^^Tf^T flrrn^n $h^icft 311^1 M3«cn n ?-^ f^re^ L3-P- ^^^:....—.^. ^-^^^^^..,----^ 2^^3 www^ 3Ti^T^<TT^R:^rf?cT -^' chi^id41-i wr^f^te^ <(^^i^ ^3:[f^T3T1^T Leanied counsel for fhe |petitioner submits fhat fhe viH^e Kedma is at distance of 50 K^ns, from village Tuma aad if the service of fhe petitioner was x|eqiiired at viUage Kedma, a clear order of transfer should have b^en passed by fhe State autfaorities ia this regard, Merely sayiagl petitioner wfll discharge his di^ fhat froni a particular date, the ^ties ia vetermaiy hospital Kedma and fhe person worfcmg in vetei|uiary Hospital Kednia (respoxident no,3) wiU discharge his duties in vetermaiy hospital Tiiraa will not be siifficient This action on th^ part offhe State Aufhority is not |in accordaiice with law as fh|e person caiinot be dirccted to idischar^e his duties pennanentij >tmg unless a vaUd order of other fhan his origmal place of transfer is issued foe fhe same. ed counsel for fhe State i^ not iu a position to defead fhis >rder of fhe State. However, h^ submits that fhe oider is of the reor 2003 aad what is fhe positio|a now fes not know to Mm. Even after ghnng the oppo^tuiaily to fhe State if repty is not Jpled fhen this Coixrt is left wifh 2|io option except to pass aa oider >n the basis ofdocuments av^ onrecord. %q'V XI-HC-22 w^r^r ^TW3T?^T 5h^Ich^f?cT ^ /' ^^ ^¥ ^- -^ 0< '•N\ '-^' ^ l^ 3^ ;:^pn^T, ^T{ly^(o,^<ni<Hy< 3ll^l ^sich ^Wdl^icb'^^"^'8^—^200; 3) f^sg ^n^T^RTT^K^fN' -3- The document Annexttre P-1 dated 24,2,20(^ oa the face of it shows fhat it is not an ordjer of transfer whereas fhe petitioner as been directed to work at different well as respondent no,3 h4ve places vice verscL Siace thejse differcnt estabMshments (dipercnt places are at some distaace and are hospitals) fhen ffais could not have been done unless an e^fective order oftransfer is issued by fhe jsaid to be aa appropriate actioa by tiie aufhorities of the State, T|ie impugaed order is set aside. The State, This order caanot be petition is allowed. C,C< as per rules, chl^f<rt4iTl ^l^<rlT^:fWt'<(^^l< ^3Tl^T3Tl^r Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (^^M)