[é Cgwwki . ’"hM Wma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PgxTION (5) No. §3g§ g} 2009 PETITIONER VS Bhuneshwar‘ Prasad Tamboli, son of Shri D.P. Tamboli, aged 47 years, Occupation-Service, presen'rly pos’red as Upper Division Teacher, Industrial Training Insfifufe, Kor‘ba resident of Qr. No.6/2, ITI Colony, Korba (CG). f, 1.5mm of Chhaffisgarh, ’rhrough fhe Secre’rary, Technical Education, Manpower Planning, Science 8i Technology Deparfmenf, D.K.$. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur. 2. The Secre’rar‘y, Deparfmen’r of Tribal Welfare Deparfmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). {The Direc’ror, Technical Educafion, Manpower Planning, Science l oi Technology Depar‘lmen’r, Ky Raipur (CG) 4.The Principal, Industrial iTraining InS‘iiTufe, Korba. K i RESPONDENTS f z 5.T.’L. Dongre, son of nof known to The pe’ri’rioner, HEGH COURT 6F C§EA?T’§;SGAEH AT EELéxSFRVR $3 : HON’ELE $HRE J§JS’E‘XCE Pm’i‘IEKER DEWXAKEE‘Q W.P.€$} N0. 33$9l2009 PETI'E‘IOMER Bhuneshwar Prasad Tamboli Versus RESPONDENTS State of CG. 8r, Others VIRIT PETXTION UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CDNSTETUTXC$§ Q? INDIA Appearance: Shri Raieev Shrivastava, counsel ¥or the pe+itioner Shri Suvmesh Bajaj, GA, with S’mAt. Smita éhai, PL. for the State. €3RAL ORDER (13.97.2099; Chailenga in the present petition is to the order dated 30.062009 (Armeuxre P/ 1) passed by respondent No‘l by which the petitioner has been transferred from Inclustria1 Training Institute Korba to Ineiustrial Training Institute, Rajnandgaon, Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the employee of Tribal Weifare Department whereas by the impugned order he has been attached to the Technical} Education, Man Power Planning, Science and Technoiogy Department. He submits that this transfer order is impermissibie under the law, On the other hand, counsei for the State submits that let the petitioner make a representation to the respondent No1 and the same would be decided in accordance with law. According'iy, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No.1 Within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of this order and in the eventuality of making any such representation, the same would be decided expeditiously within a period of three weeks‘from the date of its receipt. Till then the impugned order ’shail not be given effect to. ' Pritinker Diwaker Judge / , Sd/_