'•'/ ^^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant WritAppeal No. 516 of 2011 Shishir Sharma, aged about 45 years, s/o late Dr. Shri J.D. Sharma, present posted as CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, district Durg C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurC.G. (Respondent No.1) 2. Prakash Meshram, presently posted as CEO Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, Durg C.G. (Respondent No.2) Writ app^aLunderSection 2(1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Hiah Court (appeal tp Division Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for the appellant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1. JUDGMENT (14th November, 2011) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. "%;. "^. y i.,.^?s^ l ^ ^"'"'.'.-^'"^ i ,y ^ -y WritAppealNo.516of2011 Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The appettant has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 04.11.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No.6518/2011. 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:- "i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the instant case. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction, order to quash the order impugned dated 31/10/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1. iii. Issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, in the interest ofjustice. iv. Cost of the petition may be allowed." 4) The petitioner in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2011 whereby he was transferred from Dhamdha district Durg to Bemetara district Durg. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any iofirmity in the order of the petitioner's transfer within the same district of Durg and as such dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 04.11.2011. 6) Shri Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order of appellant's transfer cannot ''.;:^-' "ii ,' '••^. W'^s" WritAppealNo.516of2011 legally be sustained, as the same was passed in breach of the transfer policy. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; and the grounds taken by the appellant/ petitioner in the writ appeal and the writ petition, we are satisfied that neither the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge nor the order of the petitioner's transfer dated 31.10.2011 suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this intra Courfappeal. 9) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge nimmi