4- c:/^ ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ^7^ 9 QF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /<^/ ^ ,o7 MM ^^y /^y •^' ,.s? .<t-' ,»~^ v^ .TU^- VERSUS 1. 4. Dwarika Mandloi S/o Late Dayali Ram, aged about 56 years, working as Compounder at Gpvt. A}?urvedic Dispensary Sighri, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy, Health and Faraily Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Department of AYUSH, Old Nurses Hostel, Behind Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Ayurved Officer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) District A5?urved Officer, Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Under Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Health and Facaily Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ir'i 7- cz WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA i;^.. ^ HIOH COIJRT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BII-ASPTJR PETmONER WRTT PETmON (8) No. 4429 of2011 Dwarika Mandloi. RE8PONDE.NTS VRRSIJS State ofChhattisearh & Otfaers. WKTT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUHON OF IND1A SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri.J. Present: Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, P;mel Lawyer Ibr Ihe Stale/respondimls. ORI>ER (Passed on 26U day of September, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order datcd 29.07.2011 (Annexiire P/l) pa&sed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner, workinj as Compounder at Govemmeut Ayiirvedic Dispensary, Singhri, District Bilaspttr, has been transferred to Govemmeiit Ayurvedic Dispeasary, Balgi, District Siirguja, on admmistrative grounds. 2. Uamed oouiisel appearing for the petition«r subnuts that the impugned Iransfer is contraryto the policy ofthe State as accordingto Iransfer policy dated 13.06.2011, there is a strict ban on mter-district transfer ofclass III employee aad class IV employees. 3. Shri Thakw, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondente fairly sithmite fhat fhe petitioner could not have been transferred out of the district as there was a ban on inter-district transfer of class III and class IV employees. The said ban has been removed bv memo dated 08.08.2011, however, in the facte ofthe case the impu^ied transfer order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexiu-e P/l) in respect of tfae petiti<mer may be <piashed, however, liberty may be granted to the respondent authoriti&s to pa&s appropriate order in aAirinistrative exigency and piiblic interest. 4. In view ofthe above, accordine to leamed coimsel for the petitioner, nolfaiae survives fca- adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the impugied order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) m respect of Ifae petitioner is qiiashed reserving liberty to the State aiithorities to pass appropriate order in administrative exigency and public intwest, ifso advised. 6, The writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ^.^-—-"^'^ ^i^otrl Judge llill ; .:=..--/