IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG} WRIT PETITION fSI N0. ^^ / /2009 SJngIi PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / .•^\r. ^ ^ tr-^\../" z- ^<7->'^f^ 4?y •y' .^y^' ^y^ -<~n" vy.y •ff 3. Rikhiram Bhagat, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Sukru Rarn Bhagat, occupation - Service, Panchayat and Social Education Organizer Janpad Panchayat - Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through - The Secretary, Department of Womanand Child Development & Social Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, Deptt of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Deputy Director, Deptt of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Distt. Jashpur (CG) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. rit Petition (S) No.4857 of 'he State of C.G. & others. Shri A.N. Bhakta counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Pravin Das GA for the respondents ,/State. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Lailunga, Raigarh to Farsabahar District Jashpur. Earlier the said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (S) 3460/2009 ahd this Court vide order dated 15.7.2009 permitted the petitloner to make representatlon to She authorities concerned. Pursuant to the order dated 15.7.2009, the petitioner made a representation but the same according to the petitioner came to be rejected in an iiiegal manner vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-3). 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjecfed to frequent transfer. He submits that the petitioner has been shifted from the present place of posting just within. a period of two years .as he had j'oined there on 27.5.2009 after being transferred from Pithora, District Mahasamund to, Laiiunga, District Raigarh. 3. On the other hand State counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground and therefore he has no ground to remain in the present place of posting as per his choice. Learned counsel for the State further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court the representation of the petitioner has been considered objectiveiy by the competent authority and the same has been rejected after due consideration ieaving no ground for the petitioner to chaflenge his transfer order. He submits that Annexure P-3 makes it c!ear that the oniy intention of the petitioner is to remain at Laiiunga one way or the other where he had already remained for about 8 years. 4. Considering the facts and circumstanees of the case, in particular that the petitioner has aiready remained at Lailunga for about 8 years and that the impugned transfer order has passed on administratlve ground, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the petifion has no foree and the same Is hereby dismissed at the motion stage Itselr'. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge