IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHA’I‘TISGARH g; w.P. No‘ 1°77‘3 2003 ,7 /, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22*é/227f6F CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER Prgmod Kumar Tidu, Aged about y i4? years S/o Shri Jajpal Tidu Q&§oéw X R/o. c’ou’ege §oad, Jashpur (C.G.) .r . VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical and Health officer Jashpur (C.G.) Civil Surgon, Main Hospital Superintendent Jashpur (C.G.) 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. PARTICULARS ‘OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above. 1‘ PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER (S) IMPUGNED AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE AND Against the order No. 364/ Estt./ (RH/2003 dated 10.06.203 passed by Respondent No.2. XI-HC—22 ' 09.07. 2003 Shri Pamg Kofecha, counsel fc‘r The pei’i‘rioner. Shri Ranbir Singh, Govt Advow're for The SfaTe/respondenfs. By fhis pefhmn under Articles 226 & 227 of fhe Consfi'ru‘kion of Imdia, 'rhe pe‘ri‘Honer seeks f0 challetnge The order dafeé! 10.06.2003 passed by responden‘r No.2 by which Driver has been “transferred from J hpur' To Kansabel. If is The aHega’fion of The peT TionerThaT The Transfer. is mala- ‘fide. The peTiTioner-‘e wife Ts workin in The Governmen-T Girls Coiiege, Jashhur; Therefore, The Transfer is penal in naTure. Hence The Transfer be sToyed. I have heard The learned cou sel appearing on behalf of The peTiTioner and The learned Gov-T. Adv caTe appearing on behalf cf The STaTe/respondenTs. During The argumenTe, The. ed counsel for The peTiTioner l n lsubmiTTed ThaT The peTiTioner was orking aT The presenT place of ' .posTing since lasT Three To four ye rs and The place To where The i V Iuqsy e pefi‘h’oner who is working as a [.— h A XI~HC-22 unfil furfher orders and fhis is n presem‘ fransfer has been made c Driver which is lying a‘f Kansabel. on a vacan‘r posf fha‘i’ foo un‘fil fur er orders and he has been posfed a? a place which is 70 Kms. away fr m. The presenf place of posfing, I do no? find any illegaii’iy in The Tr nsfer order and The same is noT mala fide and arbITrary The peTiTi ner has been Transferred wITW’ pe‘l'ifionenhos been Transferred is plucé of posfing where his wife is submi‘r‘l’ed ‘Hmf fhe peTiTioner has; ie‘Her' Annexur-e P—3. The perusal of Annexure P-3 Ieave from 06.05.2903 f0 05.06.2003 and he had noT applied for leave n1 of leave, as per fhe rules, Thai 70 Kms. away from The presen'r working. Learned counsel furfher been fronsferred‘in View of fhe revecds fha‘f +he pe‘l’ifioner was on before 21 days of The commenceme is why The same was rejecfed. Mor eover, Annexure P-Z, by Which 'ihe pe‘h’fioner has been frans'ferred. sl‘ / Driver was lying vacan’r and lhe pe'r ows fha‘r ai Kansabel ‘rhe posi' of Tioner has been senT f0 Tha‘r place 31* a permaneni’ fransfer’ and The ;n l accounf of The vacanf posi’ of l ince The pe'rifioner has been senf my XI-HC~22 , WW I amiw ma? ‘g-at 2003 ,. W mmmw WW 1§€TW $Wm ~ 5mm The same Disfricf 'rhaf foo wifhin 7 piace of posfing, fhe pe+i+ioner was working since lasf four year-s. Erherefore, ’rher-e is no force in dism issecl. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge J m ’ > 3 Kms. disfcmce and e presen'i‘ x M [wéfaé E This pefifion and The same is