<L-^ ^- 1£» ^NCLE BB IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. iS\ N0. <^_ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS ^. ^ ^"('^'.^ ' (?o^-iACJ"".--^ >:^'(:<"^ ^'.^" .-:'}0\ 'Smt. Sarita Sharma, W/o Shri G.K. Sharma, aged about 45 years, R/o Qtr. No. 18-E, Sector-4, Street 4, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) present posted as Women Health Worker at Sub Health Centre, Maroda (Nikum). VERSUS : \r State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretaiy Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2/^^Director Health Ser^ices, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3. ^ The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) and Health Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. ^c. Chief Medical ,f.<^<-^ fervices^) Durg, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ <. PETITiQNER RESPONDENTS HJGH COURTOF CHHATT1SGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETiTION (S) No. 5329 OF 2011 Smt, SaritaSharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artide 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ashok ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 09th day of Ssptember, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner working as Woman Heaith Worker at Sub Health Centre, itffaroda (Nikum), has been transferred to Sub Mealth Centre, Kurmigundra (Patan), on adminjstrative grounds. Learned counsej appearing for the petjtioner submite that under the transfer poiicy dated 13,062011 (Annexure P-2), it is clearly stated that the GoSlector aione is connpetent to transfer the empioyees beionging to Ciass-!!! & IV services on proposal made by the other departments in approva! of the minister in-charge. in the case on hand, it appears that the Chief iViedicai & Health Offjcer, Dwg, without Toliowing the guidelines issued in the transfer poiicy had passed the order impugned, when the Coiiector has been assigned the responsibjiity of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence ofthe officer. Accordingjy,the transfer is unsustainabie sn the eyes of law. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, iiberty is reserved to the government to pass an appropriate order, if so advlsed, in accordance with lavv', in administrative exigency and in public interest. Accordingiy, the writ petition is ailovved to the above-extent. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge