HNGLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR. W. P. (Sl No. l£0^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS \ .^^ ^vuv"^ ^' <?-: ^ '^'° ^ 3: (. Smt. Ramavati Bhagat, wife of Rajendra Ram, aged about 40 years, (A.N.M.), Sector Sirsi, R/o. ViUage and Post Sirsi, District Surguja (C.G.), VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through; Secretary, Health Depeutment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Block Medical Officer, Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. • "^t^ n', H!GM COLfftTOE GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1801 OF 2011 PETITION^R RESPONDENTS . Smt. Ramavdi Bhagat Versus i State of Chhatttegarh & Others OA/ntPetitionunderArticle228ofthe Con^itution of India) Single Bench; Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ia»—tunr<»ri Present:- Shri J.K.Shastri, AdvaKite^or the pstitioner. Shri Ajay Owivedt, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDERtOt^U (Passed on this 04al day of July, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petittoner sed<s quashlng of the letter datad 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Bioek Medicd Officer, Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.), whereby, the palitloner has been directed to handover ttie charge of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) in SectionSirei, Block Bhaiyattian and Join the new place of |»sUng l.e. Btock Udaipyr. 2. Shri Shastri, leamed counse^ appeanng fsr tha Retitipner submite that without pas^jng proper transfer order.the petiUoner has l»enrdievwl to join at the new place of ppsting. The reliwing qrder has been pass«lby the respondent No.3 in an jltegal and arbitrary manner witti malaflde intention. - s 3. Further, contention of the peUUoner is ttiat her husband is ateo vmrking as Village EmplpymentAssistant in the same viltagQ i.e. Sirst andon account of transfer of the petitioner, the chjldren of ttie petiUoner shall suffer irreparable Ipss to|caysethey are Rrosecuting theirstudiesatttrepresent placeortheposUngofthe peUUoner.Thus,theimRugnedprclerde»rveis tobequashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of their return submits that infactby orderdiated 15.07.2010 (Annexure R-1) issyed by the Chief Medjcal & Heatth Officer, ^nfajkapur, DisUct j0k» ;;..:;;t3& g •K^y-^ f Surguja, several employees have been transferred tacluding ttie pre^nt peUtioner, in which the nameofthe petflioner finds placeat sariatNo.'IO. Even,.theBlockMedical Offlcer, Bhaiyathan, hss alsoserved the transfet orcler to the petitioner by Irtter dated 04.08.2010 (Anneaire R-2). Therefore, the contention of the petitioner thrt without passmgbansfer; order, ttie petitioner has been relieved is miseenoeived and falbcious. Thus, the peUtion may be dismissed. 5. 1 have heard learned counsel awearing for Nie (»rtias, perwed Vhe pleadingsand documente appended ftereto. 6. The petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. On pemsai 6f the transfer order dated 15.07^010 (Anneaire R-1) and thereaftor, Gommunteation of the tiansfer orderdated 04.08301f0 (Annexure R-2),the contention ctf the petitioner that the impugned retieying ordgr Bas |eeo jaassed without ftiere bejngany transterorder is misteadmg, Thus, the petjtion deseryes to be d|smis»(don thls ground alone. There Is no otherreason waiTanting interference wtth the transfer order, which was passed in administratiye exigency and also there is na case ofthe petttioner that the sa(ne yas passed by an fncpmpetenl offtcer or anymalafide exereise ofpower or contrary to the prineiplesoflaw. 4) Be thatasitmay,itlsatrite lawthattransfor/posGngisanJncidenee of service. The Court should not interfere with the fransfer/ppsfing order unless there fe malice, infHngement of statutory rotes and r^ulatians. In the ease on hand, the peUtioner has TaNed to ertatslish anyjrf the aforestated grounds. The eroployee may be posted anywrtiere at instance of the emptpyer in public interest and adminisb'atlveodgeney. Further, it is for the Government to post another perspnif any vacancy arises on account of fransfer/posUng pf an employee. Thus, the impugmd order warrants no interference. (See E.P.Rqjiappa v. StateafTaiwl^Nadu 5) andanottTei', Shilpi Bose(Mrs.) andothers v. S^e of Shar & anoffi^, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kourv and otters3, Mc*ct Mawod Ahmad v. Stefe of U.P. & Oft»s4 Cftfe/ Commefcief Manager. Souffr Central Railway, SecundepabsKl & Ofters v. G. Rainaro S Offws5 antf AHportsAuthorifyoflrKSav.-RajeevRafanPandey&CMiei'/). w - For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitfon is dismissed. tte orderasto costs. SatishK.AgBihotri ashok 11974(4)8cc3 r r 2(199lilSun?2SCC6S9 3(1995)3SGCZ?'0 - » 4CM07)8SCG150 . ; 5(2007)&SCC212 T ; .6(200^85CX;33Z '. .?