y^s-^ ^sff^iS^ S ^^"'11 ^.^/ ^^ ot ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARM AT BIU^PUR DIVISION BENGH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 30 of 20<»8 ApBellant RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. •1; ^ Bri] Klshere Dubey, S/o late Shri Mangatdeen Dubey, aged about 53 years, presently worktng as Deputy Ranger, Kodri, Marwahi Forest DMsion, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Departmenf of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Divisionat Forest Offieer, Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra Road, Distt. Bllaspur, Chhattisgarh. Shri Santram Maravi, S/o not known to the petifioneF, aged about - not known to the Petitioner, presently working as Forester, Development work, Khodri, h4arwahi For^ DMsion, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WritaBBeal under Section 2(11 ofthe Chhattlsaarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2008 'Pr^ent: Shri PankajShrivastava, leamedcounselforttie appellant. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. ith (04m Mareh, 200«) K'sscys •••^.. K The followno judoment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. Appellant - Brij Kishore Dubey, has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 17-01-2008, passed in W.P.(S)No. 342/2008. 3, Appellant/petitioner - Brij Kishore Dubey, fiied the writ petition for the foltowing reliefs :- "7.1 (i) That Hon'ble Court may ktndlybe pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire records relating to the impugned/transfer order ofthe petitioner. (ii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus and quash the transfer order dated 24-12-2007 in respect of the petitioner. (iii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the impugned transfer order tilt the pendency of the instant petition. (iv) Any other rellef, whfch Hon'ble Court deems flt, and proper In the cireumstances of the case and petltion may kindly be atlowed with costs." 4. The appellant/petitioner, In substance, was challenging the order dated 24-12-2CN37 whereby the appellant/petitroner was deputed at Madna Depot in the same Forest DMsion, Marwahi. ^^L jtii S 4 ^ ~*-:^' / 5. Learned Sinale Judge findtng that the imDugned order is not an order of transfer, but is only an outcome of reallocation of the duties in the same Forest Divlsion, passed the impugned order dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 6. Shri PankajShrivastava, learned ^unsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the teamed Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order dated 24-12-2007, impugned in the writ petition though the said order suffers from serious infirmities. 7. As is apparent Trom the order dated 24-12-2007, it was due to reallocation of duties between the appellant and respondent No.3 that the appettant was deputed at Madna Depot and respondent No.3 was deputed In place of the appellant at Khodri. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity either in the impugned order dated 17-01-2008 whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed or the order dated 24-12-^)07 impugned in the writ petition, which may warrant interferenee in this writ appeal. 9. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dtemlssed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge subbu