^ CA 1 ^ WTSSSON9B^E SmttCOUKTOy C3SBATTS8GARS ^UDICATVSiK AT BILASPVK W.P. t S^ JVo. f6(3-6 j^oio PBTSTmNSK: /" ^s^ ..y ...^' .^ ^".^' .^ RSSyaN^SNTS: Dr .Amit Jain S/o Lt .Shri Ashok Kumar Jain Aged about 31 years Occupation ~ Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Artifid.al Insermnation Centre Jagdcilpur Dist- Bastarf C.G.) VKRSV8 ''. State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Department of Agriculture (Veterinary) Mantralaya^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) ^' 2. Joint Director Veterinary Services Jagdalpur Dist- Bastar (C.Q) WS3T PSTITION UNOSK ARTICS^ S26/227 Of TffJB CONSTfTVTfON 0F JTKDJA vm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILXSPUR WRTT PETmON CSV No. 1006 of2010 PETmONER : Dr. AmitJain. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Deepali Paiidey^ Advocafe for the petitioner. Sfari P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer fbr the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 10tn day of March, 2010) 1. By this petition, fhe petitioner impugns the order dated 30.06.2009 (Armexure P/l) whereby the petitioner, working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Artificial Insemmation Cenlre, Jagdalpyr, District Bastar, has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Geedam, District Dantewada, on admmistrative grounds. 2. Ms. Pandey, leamed counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that against the afbresaid transfbr order, the petitioner has made a representation to the Secretary, Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department on 20.7.2009 and 16.10.2009 (.^nnexure P/3 coUy.), wliich are still pending consideration. 3. On query from fhe leamed State counsel asfo why the representation is not being decided, leamed State counsel subiiiits that fi-om perusal of the documents, it is not clear asto whetiier the representations amiexed to the petition have been made to the respondent authorities as it does notbear any endorsement. However, in the event, ifit is foundthat the 's- petitioner has made any such representation, the same shall be decided as expeditiously aspossible. 4. Since it is the obligation ofthe State authorities to consider and decide - the representations made by the employees, it is directed that in the event it is found that the petitioner has made the aforesaid representations, the respondent authorities may consider and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable time, may be within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposedof Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \.-'"\