@ $§ngla Bgngh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (cm w.P.s. No. qgga Izoo9 PETITONER : Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o- Late M.L. Gupta, aged about 6O years, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Parsada, Block— Aarang, District— Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 4 K RESPONDNETS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Public Education, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.) Principal, Arundhati Devi Government Higher Secondary School Aarang, District— Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. MUCULALQEIHEDEEL HIGH COURT G? CHHAT’E‘ES’GARH $117 BILAS?UR SE : HGK’ELE EHRI JUSTECE PRITXNKER DIWAKER wmgg 1w. 4839;2w09 FETfi'TEQNEAR Vinod Kama-r Gupta Versw RES?Q§§DENTS Stats of GG. &. Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTECLE 225 OF THE CON$TITUTION 9F INDIA Appeaxance: Shri F. S.Khare, ccunsel for Tim petitioner. Shn' Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy.A.G. for the Stata. ,m ORAL gmm 91.03.2009; With the consent of iearncd counsei for the parties, the matter is heard §nal1y. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P/ 2) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the pefi‘rioner who is workiog as Pimcipal has been transferxed from Government Higher Secondary School, Parsada, Block Aarang, Distt. Raipur to Govt. Higher Secondary Schooi Amsena, Aarang, Dis‘m Raipur. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from arthritis and therefore the impugneo transfer order ought not to have been issued. He further challenges the order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the impugned . transfer order. Contention of the counsel for the State is that the petitioner has been transferred on administrau've ground and he cannot challenge the impugned transfer order o personal grounds on account of medical difficulties. He further contends that pursuant to the order dated n \5a g: 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3674] 2009, th€ r€presentation of the petitioner has also been considered by the competent authon‘ty but the same has been rejected. He aleo contends that the trallsfer is an incident 0f service amd the petitioner cannot claim the posting of his own choice. I Have heard counsel for the parties. I fmd no reason to interfere in the present matter and the petition is accordingiy (iismissed. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge f t I y J t