^' ® C^i^ ^ nB -fc^ IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU_D!CATURE A7 BIUSPUR. PETITIONER: r-^v 7^'. y/J^ / e^%/ . ''.••" ^•^v <? ..y-v c<?' ^y ^"^' / .•!0'-e?-- .••' <y RESPONDENTS: Petition No?/ ^&'^ of 3. 5.K. Sandey,^ S/o K.R. Sandey, Aged about 47 years, Occupation: Service, Working as Biock Educ Officer, Biiha, District: Bilaspur, sg Mantraiaya, O.K.S. Bhawan, ftaipur, Chhattisgarh. ic insi sgarh, District Education Officer^-' District: Bilcspur, High School, Pausara, ,^ >TT lA 1 :CTI< <g) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGASH AT BILA8PUR S.B.: HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. Petitioner WRIT PETITION fS.) N0.4813 OF2W6 8.K. Sandey Respondents versus State ofChhattisgarh andothers l'{"' Present : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gupte, Deputy Govemment Advocate for respondents No.l, 2 and 3. None appears for respondentNo.4. ORDER (Passed on 5a ofSeptember, 2006) The petitioner, who was working as Block Education QfGcer, Bilha, by impugned order dated 30-8-2006 (Annexure P-4), has been transferred as Lecturer, Higher Secondary School, Kirari, District Janjgir. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 30-8- 2006 (Annexure P-4) on the ground, firstly, the order is contrary to the transfer policy, secondly, the petitioner was trajnsferred only in the month ofOctober, 2005 and thirdly, education ofthe children of the petitioner is being disturbed in the mid session oftheir studies. 2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalcya Smigathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pamiey and other^, admittedly, the petitioner has. no right to continue on the same place ofposting forever and this is for the employer to post an employee in the pubUc interest and in administrative exigency. 3. However, leamed couasel for the petitioner submits that tfae representation dated 31-8-2006 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner pending before respondent No.l be considered, keeping in view the family problems of the petitioner and the fransfer policy, to which leamed counsel appearing for respondents No.l, 2 and 3 has no objection. 4. In view of foregoing reasons, respondent No.l is directed to decide the representation dated 31-8-2006 (Annexure P- 8) ofthe petitioner on its own merit, keeping in view probtems of the petitioner individually and tfae transfer policy. 5. With tfae above-stated observation, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2004) 12 SCC 299 •-1