fflGH COURT OF C3EIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION fS) No. 1850 of2007 PETITIONER : Smt. S.Kujur D/o Ralis Kujur, Aged about 52 years Oceupation District Programme OfBcer, C/o Mahila Bal Vikas Department Ambikapur, Tahsil & Distriet Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS R_ESPONDENTS : 1. Stote of Chhattisgarh Ttu-ough Secretary Womea and Child Development and Social Welfare, D.K-S. Bhawan; Raipw District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Smgle Bench : Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agrihotri. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocats for tfae State/respondents. 2. (Passed on 4al day ofMay, 2007) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner working as Assistant Director, Women and Child Deveiopment and Socia] Welfare Department at Ambikapur, was promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the departmenl, vide order dated 27.09.2006 (Annexure P/l). After promotion, she was not given any assignment and she continued without workiag for a long time. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 681/2007 (Smt. S.Kujur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) whereunder this Court vide order dated 6.2.2007 observed that the Government should explaia as to why the representation of the petitioner has not been considered. Thereafter the matter was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.2.2007. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner was transten-ed in the capacity of Deputy Director and posted as District Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department in fhe Directorate, vide order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure P/6). 4. Tfae petitioner faas impugned this order on the ground that due to filing ofthe earlier petition i.e. W.P.(8) No. 681/2007, tiiis order has been passed, Thus, it tantamounts to malafide exereise of powers. The petitioner has no other material except a bald statement that the fransfer and posting of the petitioner vide order dated 6.2.2007 is malafide. Mere statement is not enough to establish malafide without support of otber relevant materials, Thus, Ihe contention of the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves to be rejected as meritless. 5. Thus, this petition is accordingly dismissed as having no merit. No order as to costs. 6. Coasequently, I.A. No. 1; application for ad-interim writ'directioa IA.No. 2, application for impleading the Collector in person, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ama;