/" /- /-3-0/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.l W.P^NO. ^(^S-S /2Q06 PETITIONER ^; ^<.3-"^ ....•'" ^^•< 'fe^-" -..« Jay Shree Kesharwani Aged about 31 years D/o. Shri^Seenkqn<ikti Kesharwani ^ R/o. Dhangar Deepa, Raigarh !.o.--"".^'^&\y'\>-"""' Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), ^v^ys^yp'''' 'w^' ....y AS°"' < 1 *:. %vy r* i\&v >u' G^- RESPONDENTS presently posted as Patwari, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS /'[. The State of Chhattisgarh Through - the Secretary Department of Revenue D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) • 2. The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) /3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R ) Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) / 4. SantoshKumar Sahu Posted as Patwari in Tahsil Office Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) / k 6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTJTUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 NIN^I Sh*1T^ 3^ •^MM^, w5\WI<a, (qcll+fy ^^.t^f.^. ^R; 200 ^) 3TI^?TMacn (yil^6!^) an^T^irR-fisti B8iT3n^raitiicti ^ ?^iiwflf?(T3m^T 18.8.2006 Mr. R. Pradhan, Advooate forth| Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Adv. fc| Heard. By the instant petition the petiti^ 6.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby s| Sarangarh on the administrative grouncjl. The main grievance of the adjust respondent No.4. It is settled law that an employt order oniy when the same is outcome rules. Perusal of the petition sho\ivs ths|t out a case that she has been transferrtd Merely by writing against the name| transferred on his own expenses does| been transferred in order to accommodt Learned oounsel for the petitk petitioner cannot be transferrsd before In the first Instance the trsnsfer not enforceable at law. Moreover, it as possibte an employee should not be] is not mandatory that no employee years' tenure. Therefore, the petition is devoiip and it is hereby dismissed. Consequentlv, M.(W.)P. No.337| Inviewofthisorder. I.A. No.79119; t)KiIci<11-f t]|ticlTiftei^t<Rl<-t;l< ^srf^q'ail^r e petitioner. ir the State on advance copy. iner has challenged her transfer order dated \\e has been transferred from Raigarh to petiti(1)ner is that she has been transferred just to ee is entitled to challenge his/her transfer rf malafide or passed against the statutory the petitioner has not been able to make on!y to acoommodate respondent No.4. of respondent No.4 that he has been not indteate that the petitioner herein has ate respondent No.4. submits that as per trar.sfer poiicy the ;omp!etion of 3 yeara tenure. solicy is not a statutory rules, therefore, it is been menttoned in the policy that as far Itransferred before completion of 3 years, it be transferred before oompletion of 3 oiter hte dan of merit, same is Hable to be dismissed 11/06 also stands dismissed. 79119/06 stands disfiosed_Qf,_ Sd/- L.C-Bhadoo Judge