IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH smmt mew WRIT PETITION No.294“77 2006 PETITIONER /Smt Basan Raha W/o— Ashim J Kumar Viswas, Aged about 39 ok “wdé years R/o- Village Jhagarpur, ,wTahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Medical and Health / Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Block Medical Officer Lailunga a District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Director, Medical and Health V" Department, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Shanta Sai Chairman Swasth Mahila avam Bal Kalyan Samit, IV“ Jilla Panchayat Raigarh Dist Raigarh C.G.) 6. Smt. Puni Bai A.N.M. Mini P.H.C. / Tatkaliya, Block Lailunga, Distt— ’Raigarh (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @J < i . t ( XI-HC-78 8V3H~~IX mmaiwmwm 7"“ ‘Wm Wvm-Q 23-6-2006 ’ g” I Mr Mr A AS K Athaley, Kachhawaha counself G01 the Advocate petitioner for the Stateire?’pondents i No.1 ‘ § i § t9 4. f Heard ‘both the copnsei. By this writ petitiojn under Article 226/227 of the Con§tttution of India, the petitioner has questioned correctness and propriety of the order dated 30‘“ May, 2006, passedg by the Chief Medical & Health éfficer, Raigarh, whereby the petitioner; has been transferred from Sub gHealth Centre, Jhagarpur to Katkaliya; E Learned counsel 9for the p itioner submits that the transfer has been made at the instance of respo dent N05 Smt Shanta Sal Chairman Swasth Mahila Avam Bal Kalyan amiti Zlla Panchayat Raigarh and copy of the transfer order has also been ent to respondent No 5 E Havmg heard learned cou sel for the parties havmg regard to the facts and circumstances of the ase and havmg perusedgthe record the establish petitioner that In order the transfer to assatl order the h' ransfer s been order made has on mala not orjy fr e basrs to allege contrary but to the statutory rules or that the a thorrty who has passed the transfer order rs not competent to pass the sa e. Merely by saymg thatgthe transfer has been made at the instance of r spondent No.5 cannot be t a ground for challenge of the transfe} seeking j dicial review against the rder impugned. The petitioner is already workin since last ten years on the place from where she has been transferred Moreover the transfer lhas been made ' wrthrn the same block By sendr g a copy to respondent No 5 who Is none else than the Chairman of Swa th Mahrla Avam Bal Kalyan Samrtr Zrla Panchayat: Raigarh, meant for l ng after the actlvrtres relating to health, rt rn‘ H g o r XI—HC-78 3am, m,W Wm ...@CF:.2.{?‘€:?/. W 200 é WW<W) mam WWW WW WW£ %a¥%&rm&¥r ~2: WWW Soma cannot be inferred or presumed hat respondent No.5 has some bias against the petitioner and on accqunt f that the petitioner has been transferred. Therefore, the petitioner has no been able to make out a case for judiciai review and inference by this Co rt exercising theextra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Con ‘tution of india. The petition is therefore, liable to’be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. at the admission stage itself; ‘ Consequently, M.(W.)P.No;2256/2O06 sends dispggeggt Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge w