ppm, 'vC @ $m‘r. . Mahjabee n I$i1ahaque Age§ mm 4?- yearS. W/O Mohammaf‘. Ii3hahaque, Leeturer ( Biolwgy ) M.L .B .G .Ei .$ .u‘:«chobl, BilaEpur (c.G.) EN T’riE’ HIGH CGURI‘ 03‘ JUDICAE‘ t, >1 w X. X, “1) 3ta‘ce 0£ C‘.G. Through 3 Secretary $ecretriate, Staim Eiiucation Departmemb‘m Ministry, bau Kalyan $ingh Euilding Raipur (0.6.) irac-tar, Public Imtruc‘cion‘ Permian Bacla Raipur (C.G.) r3) District Eiucation 0f£icer Biléuspur District Distt. u Bilaspur’ (C .G.) WRIL‘ Phggim UNDER WICLgmgvgaiw oxggg cwyTmwggN; PET. 3T 1m ER D ‘ XI—HC-22 $§w 311%?! mmW WW 27(0112003 Shri Y.C. Shanna, coun S61 for the pétiu'oner. Shn' Ranbir Singh, GA’gor the State. 1 Heald. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16/ 10/ 2002 issued by the re spondent no.3— Distxid’f‘gducation 0&cer, Bilaépur, whemby the petitioner who was working as a Lecturer of Zoologi at Mahalaxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary : School, Bilaspur, has been ansferred to Government Higher School, Seepath. x Secondaxy ’l‘o begin with it m be stated that transfer is an meidence of semce and a pe on who holds a transferable post to his transfe as 1t ls w1th1n the Jurisdiction of g1 ’ ‘ cannot object the employer to determine s to where a particular employee /shou1d or should not be p0 d However, there may be some transfer which e examined by the Court and these g‘ , ‘ cases of may would normally e the cas s where an employee has been subJected to hequent trans rs or the transfer ls by Way of harassment or to accommod te a particular person by bringing him back to the place horn here that person was transferred : E y and sending out the incumb nt who had joined that particular place of transfer of the preVio s incumbent Interference may be Justified 1n cases of malande r infraction of any proposed norms or principles. Where career spects remain unaffected and no detriment is caused challenge to transfer ought not to be to an order of transfer in the f entertained. Thus the challnge {ateW XI-HC-22 I ’ opinion of the Court, background. Acconiing to the petitio quashed and it violates the trans by State counsel that the order petitioner is under the policy applicable to petitioner. It is sta peh‘tioner has been Working sin Bai Girls Higher Secondary Soho transferred to Government Highe is also stated that the petitioner 09-09—2002 (Annexure‘ 13—6) a the concerned authorities and considered and decided she has / In View of the above and tiled which is pending consider that this petition be disposed of l consider and dispose of the rep (Annexure P—6) on its own merits that the Court is not expressing a petitioner’s contention and a n dec1ded bv the authonnes on it shall also determme as to Whett .applicable to the peunoner; representation, it will be open staying the operation of the nnpugned order. However, the above is to be considered in the , the order is liable to be r policy. In reply, it is stated > hich has been issued to ,the f Yuktiyuktkaran, whizh is d by learned counsel that the e- 02107/1991 in Mahammi l, Bilaspur, and now has been Secondary School Seepath. It s filed a representation dated t the order of transfer before as! the same has not been roached this Court for relief. e a representation has been , the Court is of the opinion ry directing respondent: No.2 to resentation dated 09-09-2002 gexpeditiously. It is made clear ny opinion on the merits of the :presentation will have to he s own merits. The authorities ier the said Yuktiyuktkaran is Pending consideration of the to the authorities to consider i {tieW a ' s g s' a r p c n )H—HC—22 ma? mm WWW mm Wm amiagm i n Authonty 1s fre€ to tak€ a dec1s1011 ‘deferaa all the 611d 0f the acaden pditiormr may submit a fresh r6} £rom today. With the' above obsewation stands (iisposed of. ConSEquen‘tb No.7998/ 2002 for urgant h€a1ing a Ceru'iiai copy a$ per Rules. ab to Whether the order mav be If so advised, the )l‘esentation within seven days 11C S€SSIOIL a and duecnons the petmon MW P No%1598/2002 & 1A Lso stand d1s osed 0f. Y sci/— ‘1 p,C.Naik Judge