3, g^f;^,3,-^ ^^l-yii <J ^^^J(s?Iit -^&r ^/^f^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT_URE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) NO. e's^)- i 2006 Petitioner v^6^ i-^" l-'"jite! /^y. ^ ^M' / A. y ^f-' ^'Of <<s" ;"' PushpaEkka/ W/o Seraphinus Aged about 42 years, Ocqupation - Principta.L* Govemment Giris Higher Secondary School,.SaEaiigarh, R/o Dharamshala Gali, Sarangarh, Dist: Raigarh-fC.G.) Versus Resoondents A '<•» ^...^ ^^y f: ;< <3> 1. State of Chhattisgarh ,// Through The Secretaiy School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The Upper Secretary,^-' School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) 3. The Collector, Raigaihy Dist : Raigarh-(C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer,,/ Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^a^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WntJ'etitioii (Sl No, 5327 pf 2006 Ftetitioner: Pushpa Eklca Versus Respondents: State of Cbhattisgarh & others lin^e Beach; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish ^ Shri V. K. Paadey, Advocate for the petitiouei-. Sbri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for tbe Respondents. (1_R_D ER 4th October, 2006) The following order ofthe Couft is passed by K. A^tiliotri, J. 1. The petitioner, who was employed as Pnncipal and was working at Girls Higher Secondaiy School Saraiigarh, was tl'ansfeiTed vide oider dated 1.1.8.2006 (Annexnre P,/1) to Goveniinent Higher Secondaiy Scbool; Saria, Raigarh. At this stage leanied counsel for tlie petitioner confines lf.is subfflissioa to a dinection to the iTespondents/authorities for considering fb.e repieseatation of the petitioner, pending befone tlie Secretary, School Education Departinent, Raipur. 2. ? have heari. leamed coiinsel for the petitioner and penised the petitioa siid annexui^s appended thereto. The impilgned trausfer orier seems fo be a inutine transfer on adininisti^tive exigency. It is well establisbed principle of law that the Court should refiain froin uiterfering with fbe ti'ansfer orcler which is passed in public intei-est as well as adininistnative exigency. This Coiirt can interfere bnly in the case of pi-oved inalafide, non-competence of aiithority passing the traTi.sfer onler aarl transfer oitler is passed ^niadstoWBaA^WdttSA^NlS^^fEiBi ^ contrary to the statutory niles, regulations, circzilar ete. It is not a case where any of the grounds, as stated above, lias been alleged by the petitiouer. Thus, there is no inerit in fhe case. 3. In view offhe foregonig, the petition is disinissed. However, hi the facts and circumstances of the case, the re'spondent No. 1 is directed to consider. aiid decide the pending application dated 21.9.2006 (Aiinexiu-e P/2) in. accoiTiance with law, on its own merits, preferably within a period of tliree weeks frojn tiie date of receipt/prodiiction ofa copy ofthis orier. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge • ^'.'