H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BEFORE THE HIG BILASPUR g CHHA'mSGARH ) w.P. (s1 No. 5003 [201 1 Govmé . V Smgh . Uddey S/o Latge a/ Ramu Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o Ward No. 18, Bhramhanpara, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through—Secretary Health and Family We1fare Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C‘.G.) Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C,G.) PETITIONER ESPONDENTS i/ ?7. ER ARTICLES 226 OF THE WRIT PETITION UND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WRIT PETITION UNDER ARUCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prescnt: Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for tho petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29m day of August, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l). whereby the petitioner working as R.H.O. at Community Health Centre, Dhamdha to Sub Health Centre, Mau, Khandsara. District Durg. on administrative grounds. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer policy dated 13.06.2011, it is clearly stated that the Collector alone is competent to transfer the employees belonging to class HI and IV services on proposal made by the departments in approval of the minister-in-charge. In the ease on hand, it appears that the Chief Medical & Health Oificer, Durg, without following the guidelines issued in the transfer policy, has passed the impugned order, when the Collector has been assigied the responsibility of transfer of the employees working in the concerned district, on proposal of the concerned departments. ' Thus, this sutl‘ers from the defect of competence of the officer. Accordingly. the transfer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However. liberty is reserved to the government to pass appropriate order, if so advised. in accordance with law, in administrative exigency and in public interest. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/—' Satish K, A Judge gnihotri‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Q WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5003 of 2011 PETITIONER : Govind Singh Uddey. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others.