,<S-A fc^. ^ if''^.".^'^^'u ~\ g 'iSff.Ssi ^sS-S^^-^::^«~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant WritADpeal No. 561 of 2011 Smt Devmati Paikra, aged about 31 years, w/o Shri Vijay Kumar Paikra, Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 (Superintendent), Govt. Girls Ashram - Ranhat, Balrampur, Distt Surguja CG VERSUS Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat-Ambikapur (Surguja), Distt Surguja CG 3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare - Ambikapur, Surguja, Distt Surguja CG 4 Block Education Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, Balrampur, Distt Surguja CG 5 Dev Kumar Gupta, aged about not known to the petitioner, presently working as Block Education Officer, Balrampur, Distt Surguja, CG 6 Smt Jayanti Sonha, aged about not known- to the petitioner, s/o not known to the petitioner, Shiksha W.A.No.561 of 2011 Karmi Grade - 3, presently posted at Primary School - Lungikhurd, Block - Balrampur, Distt Surguja CG 7 Smt Lusi Kumbria, Aged about not known to the petitioner, s/o not known to the petitioner Shiksha Karmi Grade - 3, presently posted at Primary School - Chamanpur, Block Balrampur, Distt Surguja CG Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. JUDGMENT •th (16InDecember,2011) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Theappellant has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 01.12.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No.7152/2011. 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:- "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire records relating to case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and quash/set aside the order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure-P/1) and direct the W.A.No.561 of 2011 respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Superintendent in Govt. Girls Ashram-Ranhat, Block-Balrampur, distt. Surguja, C.G. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the order impugned dated 22.11.2011 till the pendency of the - instant petition. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4) The petitioner in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was transferred from Government Girls Ashram, Ranhat, Block Balrampur to Middle School, Lurgikhurd, within the same Block of Balrampur. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the entire submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any infirmity in the order of the petitioner's transfer challenged in the writ petition and as such dismissed the writ petition vide impugned orderdated 01.12.2011. 6) Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that the petitioner's transfer was actuated by malice and respondent No.6 who was to replace the petitioner was not eligible to be posted on the post of Superintendent in the Government Girls Ashram- Ranhat. W.A. No. 561 of 2011 7) During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioner was posted at Ranhat for the last more than four years and the distance between Ranhat, the present place of posting of the petitioner and Lurgikhurd, the place where the petitioner now stands transferred is only 20-25kms and situated within the same Block of Balrampur. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity either in the order of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the matter of petitioner's transfer or the order dated 22.11.2011, whereby the petitioner stands transferred from Ranhat to Lurgikhurd. 9) As we do not find any scope for interference in the matter of the petitioner's transfer, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge