H1QH COl^T OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5064 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Amita Bhoi, W/o Deepak Kumar Bhoi, aged about 44 year^, R/o Udaipur, Dist. Surguja (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhaffisgarh, throygh Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department. DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (CG). 2. Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (CG). 4. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Cenfre, Udaipur. Dist. Surguja (CG)- 0A/rit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sndia) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, coynsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, PaneS Lawyerfor the State. 1. 2. 3. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 7th day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in this petition is to tfie order dated 30-6-2009 (/Vinexure - P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Comnwnity Heaith Centre, Udaipur to Community Health Centre, Dhaurpur witfiin the DSstrict Sarguja. Shri Paranjape, iearned counsel appearing for the petttioner, submits that the impugned orcter is bad on the ground that pri©rto passing of the impugned transfer order the petitioner was promated from the post of A.N.M. to L.H.V. by order dated 22-6^007 (Annexure - P/2) whereas in the impugned order the post of the petitioner has been mentioned as A.N.M. Learned counse! submits that tiere is no administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner from the present piace of posting. The petitioner belongs to Class lli empioyee and 6. Gowri 2-' transfer has been made on account of poiitical pressure, as is evident from the impugned transfer order. Per contra, Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the transfer order has been (»ssedl on itie recommendation of the concerned In-Charge Minister. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P< and Others1, has upheid that thepublic representative orthe conc^ned Minister may make recommendation in aclministrative exSgency to transfer flie employee from one piace to other place. Learned counsel submits that if there is any error with regard to mentioning of the post of the petitioner in the transfer order, the same shati be looked into and appropriate order shall be passed. i have heard learned counsef appearing for the parttes, perused the pleadings and the documente appended thereto. The petitioner has not challenged the transfer order on any <^her grounds nameiy; violative of statutory provisions and lack of competeney <?f the ofR0er. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is liabte to be and ts atecordingly dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. _„-_——- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2007) 8 SCC 150