iMi'?j s a&M/»u WGSJ". SS^StifJ < •=« IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. (5^2—/2011 PETITIONER ^f 4VX<-^ ^^ ^ t'><¥ ^.^y^ ,^s>>" Uttam Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Khorbahra Ram Sahu, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Bhatgaon (Sharda) Tahsil Berla, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) presently posted at Rural Health Organization (R.H.O.) in Sub Health Centre, Nandni Khundni (Dhamdha) Distt. Durg (C.G.). . VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. -"State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Chief Medical and Health Seryices, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS^F THE PETITIONER (S):- As per the cause title. 2. PARTICULAR^OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As per the cause title. •"••S.jis-TTf^Ti .i '«»!>,, ^ :'° 'ss-^^,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No. 5 142 of 2011 PETITIONER : Uttam Kumar Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others Gowrti WRIT PET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 226_QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 5 day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l), whereby the petitioner working as Multipurpose Health Worker at Sub Health Centre, Nandinikundini, Dhamdha, has been transferred to Sub Health Centre, Aatarghadi, Bera, on administrative grounds. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to class III and IV services on proposal made by the departments in approval of the minister-in-charge. 3. In the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, has passed the impugned order, when the Collector has been assigned the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concemed district, on proposal of the concemed departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly, the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes oflaw. 4. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l), in respect of the petitioner, is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the Government to pass appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public mterest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihctri Judge