c^ (-ffG j^.3^3 ^ csr?6^^^E rateLi: Bi:iivi IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S)NO. fc2-3f7 12007 PETITIONER SMT. PREM LATA MADARIYA ages) about 29 years, >/e. "Shri Ramesh Madariya fi-f^ pK.-O^ -(KOVJ/!9V'..- ^^v .--"Miy"' ,<<s^y ^y^ ^- » RESPONDENTS ..o-?; R/o Village Dhaba, P.0. Bhedsar, Thana Pulgaon, Distt.-Durg ( C.G.) VERSUS :\. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Panchayat & Village Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Ministrial Raipur (C.G.) ;y°^ ^\1^v ^ ».C??^F" Chief Exective Officer ^- rt. District Panchayal Durg (C.G.) 3^. Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/22^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTM, J. Petitioner WRIT PETITION (8.) N0 1230 of2007, Smt. Prem Lata Madhariya. versus ResDondeats State ofChhattisgarh & Present : Shri D.R.Sharma, SeniorAdvocatewitta Ku. Anita Singh Advocate for the petitioner Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the respondents /State. (Passed on l* ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner was working as Shiksha Kanni Grade III io Govemment Giris Primaiy School, Borai, District Durg, who has been promoted to ths post ofShiksha Karmi Grade II, asd on promotion she has been traasferred and posted to Pre-Middle Scfaool Saguai, Block Dhamdha, in the same District. 2. The petitioner has impugned the transfer on promotion, on the ground that as per the policy ofthe State Government, husband aod wife be posted at one place, as far as possible. -2- ^- 3. I have gone through the policy and the records appended to the petition- Jt is clear, that firstly, fhis is not a case oftransfer simplieitor. It is a case ofpromotion and fhe petitioner has been posted on promotion to different school. Ifthe petitioner is not willing to join at the new place of transfer, she may forego her promotion, For that the petitioner is not ready, So far as posting of husband and wite at one place is concemed, it is applicable in nonnal transfer cases and that too, as far as possible. The same is not mandatory. It is to be decided in public interest by the employer. Amit 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit, which desen-'es to be and is dismissed, summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge