:s 1, c^- ^T^r_llH'Tl<4 ^s^ ^ii^id^ y^Tl<i^(o, Rdi^y ft?oTro) q|fqc^|cnal Petitioner Writ Petition (S) No. '?>^ST /2011 iTT^, 31TO ^IO ^ft ^T sT^", ^S '^^'^ 43 ^, c^ll^llcll c^ ^TT ^ T, ?imo vJTCld^; TtTKrf^) ^IMT ?, f^Rrn ^f (^oTro) ^alMcj|c^'i|u| Respondents "^ ^\-^,^> -."^^^ ^^y>!- ^ RI^)£; 1. ' 18>07TO -?TR:FT, 'gT^T : ^ra", ^c^f f^r^T f^TTT^ Tf^TcTO ^to^O^O 'TcFT ^T^ (^07TO) 2. ^ ten f^RH Ni-t'^ldch, 7rNt f^rsn ^T-T, ^ f^-sTf srtoFT, ^f, ton -g7f (^o7ro) ^TRTO \5vci^\^ ^TEzrf^ ?TToTF ten" ^f ('8?o7To) 4. f^TT ^TSTT STto^t, ^TRT, f^} ^f (B'OTTO) fe -qrf^T SRFfcT 3T^^ 226/227 'HI^^ 'd'tolT1 ^4'<lcra ^i[^c)7icncil ^t STR ^ Pi^fc-fRsld t- T'"^igTK^ ^. '^ XI-HC—78 WH^IT^HT^ ~5^ ^l^Krl^, ^TTl^4|(o, [^€ni^}^< (& >vu?. ^s^/n ••'^200 ^TI^T Tra^ (i??^^) 3T?^T "^T'f^hF ?TO ^RT s^*ii<^ ) I^TW 1Rf?TI 3?^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra IViohan Shrivastava. J. 2Q.Q7.2Q11 Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Go^ 1,3and4. cM^(<n<j1"i 'HW^ff ^ feT:st <pii^i< ^^tRm^TT^r This petition has been fiied sounsei for the petitioner- remment Advocate for the State/respondents y the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24/5/2011, by which the representa|tion of the petitioner against the order of transfer has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petiti(|>ner submite that eariier, the petitioner had fiied a writ petition before this Court adgrieved by orderdated 15/7/2010 on severai grounds, however, the writ petition wa|s withdrawn with liberty to file representation against the orderof transfer. Th^reafter, the petitioner preferred detailed representation on 1/10/10 before the $ecretary of the State in which, the petitioner raised various grounds including groug|ids that on the date of transfer of order dated 15/7/2010, the petitioner was not post^d at the piace indicated in the transfer order and that the transfer order was issuep during the ban period and that the wife of the petitioner was posted as Shiksha ^armi Grade - ii at Navagarh and chiidren of the petitioner are studying and theref|)re, the petitioner may not bo transferred in the mid session.it is further submitted that the grounds raised has not been considered and the representation vfas rejected on the ground that it was not raised in the writ petition. On the other hand, learned St^ Government Servant and he has no r| ite counsei submitted that the petstioner is a ght to continue at particuiar piace of posting and that the transfer is an incident o< ser/ice. He submits that the grounds with + + ^:^^. ..^^'Jh !/r-!va j ^ XI-HC—78 ^P-S<flT^RI^ ^ST ^i|<4t<VIAI, ^ft^FI^, f®i^lHlj,< ..[A!>.^..C.s)..i^o..;...§^^9/jy '^200 3TI^?T "<7?W ( ^l^^) 3TT^T ^5T 'Ri^icb WT<BRT^T9FRW i J Deepti i^TW^1T377^r -^- regard to stay at same piace becaus4 was considered and the representatic|n From the representation, whicjh that the petitioner had raised sever^ rejected only on tihe ground that cai|i distance from his home town which tt that other grounds which have be^n considered. Therefore, petitioner's) appropriate authority and decision b^ raised by the petitioner in his represej The petition is finaiiy disposed) oh!^fd^i'i "w^y ^*fe^ <n»it$i< ^'3:rRR^T^T his wife is working and chiidren are studying wasreiected. has been fjled by the petitioner it is found ^i grounds but the representation has been icellation has been sought on the ground of ias not been accepted. Therefore, it appears raised by the petitioner have not been representation may be considereci by the taken on varsous grounds which have been ^tation dated 1/10/10 (Annexure P/7) otf. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge +