Sin9te8ench IN THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (Sl N0. ^33^ /2011 PBTITIONBR : Umendra (Umed) Singh Deshmukh, S/o Shri Babu Lal Deshmukh, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Nikum,Post Nikum, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) at preset posted at Community Health Centre, Utai (Nikum) as a driver. VERSUS RESPONDENTS \^^ ^^..^>"r- ^f^''^ <-<!. ,c^ ^^^ c^ •<v^^ ^'2. ^^ 3. 4. •c State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretaiy Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) and Health Distt. Durg Chief Medical feu^s^ Durg, -.^.^ ^••y (C.G.) ^ WmT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETDIQNER RESPONDENTS HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5334 OF 2011 Umendra (Umed) Singh Deshmukh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others CWrit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J* Present:- Shri BP.Singh, Advocate for the petitloner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panei Lawyer for the State. gsholc ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 09tn day of September, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitionerworking as Driver at Community Health Centre, Utai (Nikum), has been transferred to Community Health Centre, Beria, on administrative grounds. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that under the transfer poiicy dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), it is cieariy stated that the CoiSector alone is competent totransfer the employees belonging to Ciass-li! & IV servlces on proposal made by the other departments in approvai ofthe mioister in-charge. In the case on hand, it appears that the Chief Medicai & Health Officer, Durg, without foiiowing the guideiines issued in the transfer policy had passed the order impugned, when the Collector hsis been assigned the responsibiiity of transfer of the empioyees working in the concerned dlstrict, on proposal of the concerned departments. Thus, this suffers from the defect of competence of the offscer. Accordingly, the trQnsfer is unsustainabie in the eyes of iaw. As a result, the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petltioner is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the govemment to pass an appropriate order, if so advised, in accordance with iaw, In administrative exigency and in pubiic interest. r/ Accordlngly, the writ petltion is aliowed to the above-extent. Sd/- . .. SatishK.Agnibom Judge