HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petltlon (Sl No. 6182 of 2007 PETITIONER RESFONDENTS Smt. MeharAfi-oz Khan W/o. Haaif Khau W/o. aged about - 43 years, R/o. C/o.- Vikas Narayan Singh Ward, Raj Fanuly, In fixint of Prem Kumar Shishu Maadir, Kairagarh, Tahsil- Kbau-agarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy Wonien and Child Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director, Woinen aad Child Wetfare Departflient Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 Project Of&cer, Women and ChiU Welfare Deparfcment, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDBRARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearaace: Sbri Anoop Mazumdar, couasel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael Lawyer for the State on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (17.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on adnussion. Leamed couusel for the petitioner submits that the petitioaer was traasferred froin Mahila Bal Vikas, Khairagarh to Maapur by order dated 7.7.2006 (Axtnexure-P/1) but fhe said order was kept ia abeyance aud she was atlowed to continue fhere for about a year aad ncw on 10.7.2007, she has been reUeved. He W.P.No.fS) 6182 of2007 subinits fhat such action on fhe part of the State authority is not in accordance with law aud ffae same is inalafide. I am unable to uuderstaiid as to how the relieviag of fhe petitioner iu consequeace of transfer order, though after a long penod is malafide. Rather not reUeving the petitioner at aa early date aad allowiag her to contuiue at Khau-agarh appears to be a reasonable consideration given to her aad fhe said order can not be held to be inalafide. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not point out any preposition or provision of law to show fhat relieving ofthe petitioner, as a consequence oftransfer order, though after a long period, shall either ainount to inalafide or is against the statutoiy Rules or Act I do not find aay force in fhe arguinent advaaced by the leamed counsel for fhe petitioner. The petition has no inerits and fhe same is disnussed. At this stage, learaed coiiusel for fhe petitiouer subiuits that there are personal difiBculties also, of tbe petitioner, therefore, she m.ay be allowed to file a representation before the concemed authority. Needless to say that the petitioner is free to ffle representation before the coucemed aufhority aad if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, fhe concemed authority is obliged to decide it ia accoidaace with law. Sd/-, juage vatti