Q$ . J ?m$""‘ m‘m‘w‘ w e IN ’l‘liE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR_ (CG) WRIT PETITION 1S) NO. gé éé /2006 !"WJL!.,.I..!_‘IONER Chetan Ram, aged about 52 years, son 01 V Shri Budhu Ram, Forest Guard, Akhoura, Forest Range — Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through —' Secretary, Department of Forest, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Forest Officer, Forest J Division South Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) 3. Forest Ranger, Forest Ran gt: x Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 4. Kamla Singh Yadav, Forest Guarcly" Van Parishar Badauli, Forest Range Ambikapur (C.G.) R ESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: , r §i1GH CGURT QF JEDICATURE €HH&TTESGARH: EILASPUR SingEe Bench: i-Ion’Me Shri Satish K. Agihotri, J. w. P. {g} we. 56% e? 2006 Petitioxmr Chetem Ram r Respondsxlts : Stats of Chhattisgarh 85 oth€rsh Versus Pmserit: Shm' A.N. Bhakm, counsel for the petitiongr. Sbri Ajay DWiVEdi, Fame} lawyer for ’dm raspondents No. 1 to 3] State. Shn' Sourabh Dangi, counsel for thc resyoncknt No. 4. O R D E R (12th Gctober, 200m 1. The petitioner is employed as Forest Guard in Forest Range, Akhaura. The petitioner has assai‘ied the impugned order dated 26.8.2006 {Annexure P; 1) whereby he wae transferred to Forest Range Badauli from the Forest Division, Akhaura, Ambikapur, on the ground that z the order is contraxy to the transfer guideiines dated 26.5.2006 ae passed dun'xig the ban period‘ 2. The second conteotion of the petitioner is that the impugned msfer order has been passed to protect the respondent No. 4, as the respondent No. 4 had committed serious irregularities at Forest Range, Badauii. The petitioner is not in a position to state asto how the respondent No. 4 can be protected when the irregularities have been committed during particular ()2; paxbd when the rsspondsixt No. 4 was working at Forast Ragga, Badauli‘ However, this placement 0rd€r sEems to be jug: axld proper, as it is'ths case of the petitioner that ’ihe respomient No. 4 had committed some imeguiaxities at Badauli, therefore, it was necesSary 10 remove him from Badau1i and piace him somewhere elee. On pemsal of the documents armexed to the petition, it 1S clearly eeiahlished that ’ihe placement of the petitioner was due to admmistrative exigency and m public intereet In fact, the impugned onler is not the transfer order, but placement of the oEcer Withill the district from one forest rahge to other forest range. Service arid other conditions may uot be aEected by the placement of the petitiooer and the resyondent No. 4 by the impugned ortler within the dame district. The petitioner has not made out axiy case soas to interfere with the impugned order dateti 26.8.2006 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of 4. Bablu the Constitution of hidia. Thus, this petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. ‘/ ‘ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge