6 BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. <5^5^ /2011 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Verma S/o.- K.R. Verma, Aged about 34 years, C/o.- Aditya Narayan Verma, Arya Nagar, Kohaka Bhilai, Sirsa Road, District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1) ( 2) \^?yf> •<J.t.--"/<\ 'l. 3) State ofChhattisgarh Through - Secretary Health Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur(C.G.) Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg District Durg (C.G.) District Tuberculosis Officer Durg, DistrictDurg (C.G.) -'WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under:- 1 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER As mentioned in th-e cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPQNDENTS As mentioned in the cause title. v^- 3^ iM HIGH_COuRTQI=CHHATTlSG6RH,.BiLnSPUR vyRiT_PcTa'30N_iS)J^p. S15&OC 2011 Ashok Kumar Venria RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Writ Petilion under Articie 226 ofShe Constitution of india) Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajif Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAD (Passed on thfe 05'" day of September, 2011) 1. By this petiiion, ihe pentioner impugns the order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Chief IVIedicai & Heaith Officer, Durg, vvhe-reby, the pelitioner worlang on the pos$ of contract Lab Technician has been posted Trom Primar/ Hea'rth Center, Bhilai-3, District Durg to Communifrv Health Center, Patan, in the same District. 2. The soie contention of the learned counsei for the petiiioner Is that the petltioner was appointed on contract basis for a particuiar piace and, as such, he cannot be posted in any other place. By order datsd 24.12.2004, the petitioner v.'as appoinied by the District Tuberouiosis Officer for posting in various piaces in the District. it is nowhere provided in the order thai the petitioner was appointed for posting at Bhiiai-3 only. iniiiaiiy, the petitioner was posted at Primary Heatth Center Gadadih, T.U. Gundardehi; Shereafter, it appears that he was transferred to Primary HeaRh Center. Bhilsi-3. Whiie v./orking ai Bhilai, the sep/ice of the petitioner was discontinued pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P-4). Thersagainst, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2S66 of 2010 vvas preferred before ihis Court, by which the petitioner was , aHowed to coniinue in ssn/ice unlil appointmenl ofthe reguiar candidate. 3. Tne above-stated facts cieariy show ihat the appolnfmem of the pst'lioner was not for a particuiar piace i.e. Bhiiai-3 and the post v»'as transferabie from one piace to another piace. There is no ofher sdmissiblte legai ground such as rriaiafide, lack of competence of the officer, v»'hohas passed the transfer order and vioiatlon of statutory rules and reauiations. Thus, there is no merit in this case. 4. Accordingiy, ths writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1