l^*8'"8'""" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 7 2-2-S' /2011 /" PETITIONER .-•{ f.ly.-s' ''•-•^'y'"''""^..--'^ ^•^^^^9 F^;...--^^ ' RESPONDENTS Set Ram Tandey S/o Shri Tarak Ram Teindey, aged about 51 years, Occupation: Seivice, Posted at Head Master Tribal Welfare Department at Government Middle School Jhagarpur, Tah Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1) ~ State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretaiy, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) /' _. _. . ^ 2) The Commissioner Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3)' The District (Adivasi Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 4) The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development RaigarhfC.G.) 5) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^ 6) The Block Education Officer, Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) ._;_'_i"a' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3iiti i p;' " 6~? 'iys?£:? ^"';^j"HC-78 3^r "4i-4!^'4, '^ftCTT^, fa^iwy &y^..:B-£ri sn^T'ira^ (^dt^<(fc?) qH'qfepfrT'WT^iS •?'fe'Zt •^RST!: KSSS^! ^aiiOTs^ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 02-12-2011 j Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel |for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government |Advocate for the State. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by transfer orderdated 17/11/2011. Assailing the correctness land validity of order of transfer, it is contended that the petitioner hasj been transferred on the basis of certain complaints in which opportunity of|hearing was not afforded io him. Learned counse! for the pdtitioner submits that principles of natural justice required that before tran^ opportunity of hearing as the brder of transfer has resulted in civil consequences and has adversel^ affected his rights. He further submits that ihe transfer is frequent. Learned State counsel subntiits that the petitioner has not been visited with any penalty but in exigency o been transferred. He further submits that the order itself shows that the compiaint was enquired into and| Therefore, the petitioner has been| The order impugned shows| against the petitioner, an enquiry \ is mereiy an incident of service fer, the petitioner ought to be given an service, on the basis of comptaint, he has it was found to be orima facie correct. transferred. that because of certairr complaints made jvas made and when in the enquiry, it was i prima facie estabiished, it was dpcided to iransfer the peiitioner. This is 1 clearly a transfer on exigency of ^ervice and in pubiic interesi. As transfer and the order has not resulted in any ^"^ '^WM'f,, 9-^WItc, fsldiy*^-!. (S,J^^o -^^11 200 sn^r 'T5W (licii^<!i<slET) SiTOT^TtyfW n'qrsnt?r5?iiNi' Deepit |]||!» IP iinli'i'fli iiifil' 4 fS^S <(«lt<;l( ^ siRpi sn^i aiteration in terms of conditions cjr the services therefore, rio opportunity of hearing was required before jssifance of order of transfer on the basis of complaints. For that reason, ch^ilenge on the ground of frequent transfer cannot be sustained. fn the result, 1 do not flntt any merit. The petition js accordingly dismissed. Sd/'" Manindra Moban Shrivastava Judge sm^t^ ^N ^TRRT, <raRRm^~—^s/i40—2/2011^-1,50,000. 4 F