•^ss^^ s's"^""" 'S! '^y] HIGH COIJBT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPIJR WniPeia<mn(S),No.342of20S% PETJTroNER : Brij ICishora Dubey, S/o Late Slm Mangaldeen Diibey, Aged about 53 years, Pr&sently working as Deputy Ranger, Kodri, Marvvahi Forest Division, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Z7ERSUS BE.SEQNDENTS : 1. State of ClAattiggarh, Tlir.Tiigli: Secretaiy Deptt. of Foresf, DKS Bhawan, Mamralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Divisional Forest OfBcer, Marwaiii Forest Division, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sliri Santram Maravi, S/o not kiiowii, Presently workim as Forester, Development Work, Khodri, Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur Cfahattisgarh. (V.'KtT PETTRON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'We Mr. Satish K. Agnthotri, J.) Present : Sliri Paiikaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. ORALORDER (Fassed on 17a' of'Januaiy, 2GO§) 1. Leanied counse! appearmg fbr tfae pietitioner submits tliat tfie petitioaer, working as a Range Assistant, Kliixlri, has been tra-iisferred to Madna forest depot by order dated 24.52.2007 (Aimexiire P/l), in the same capacity. The respondent No. 3 who was workiag as Forest Guard at Kliodri, has been asked to work as Range Assistant, Khodri, in piace of the petitioner. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer (for short 'DFO'), Marwalii Forest Division, Pendra Road, who is competent authority to make aSlocation ofthe work within liis forest circ!c, has passed the order. 3 Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner impugns fce validity ofthe order that the DFO is not compefent to pass this order, which amounts ^o transit^r. 4. On hearing leamed counse! for t'ne petifioner acd penisa! of the pleadings and dociimeiits appended thereto, it is evident that tiie order mipugos is not an order oftransfer from one division to another division but within flie same fore.st division. T!ie petitioner has been gent to the forest dcpot, Madna, iii the sane capacity and the respondent No. 3, Sahu who was working in the same area, has been asked to look after the work oftlie petitioner. Next conteirtion ofthe leanied counsel that the State Govenmieiit alone is competent to pass the traiisfer order as the petitioner has been appoiiited by the State Govermnent; tliis contention is not sustainable as this <s not a transfer from one district to anotlier district wherein tlie .d' State Govenmieat is competent to pass the traiisfer order. Tliis is the adjustment/aUocatioii ofwork witliin the saine forest division. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner iiirther submits that tlie approval of the In-charge Miiiister is necessary for aUocation of the work. This eontention is fi"ivoloii8 as aiurister-in-eharge caimot niii the day to day adniinistration ofthe forest circie for allocatioa ofwork. There is no other admissib!e groijnd raised by the petitioiier. This petitio" is devoid of merit and is accordiiigly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatisbK-Agnihom