<5 3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S1 No.3249of 2007 Petitioner AjaySingh,aged44years,S/o.Late Shri Sundersingh, Godown Keeper, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Durg, Forest Division, Durg. Versus 1) Govt. of C.G.,through Secretary, Forest Division, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2) Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Durg.CG. 3) Jantu Ram Makariya, Forest Guard, Durg Forest Division, Durg, CG. (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri N.K. Chhatterjee, eounse! for the petitloner Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State (Passed on 11th June,2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitloner submits that the petitioner is working as Godown Keeper in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Durg, Forest Division, Durg. Vide order dated 7-3-2007 (Annexure P/2) petitioner was transferred from Durg Circte (Sikosa) to Gunderdehi Circie and thereafter vide impugned order dated 15-5-2007 the petitioner was transferred from Durg Circle to the Gurur Forest Range. By the subsequent order dated.15-5-2007 (Annexure P/1)which is Impugned herein, the petitioner has been transferred from-.Durg Cirele to Gurur Cirde within thesame forest division. . 1" fS 2) On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in view of training oftheincumbentatGururcircle, the petitioner was posted on temporary basis to io&k after Gurur cirele in absence of the incumbent, who was required to be reiieved to attend the training. 3) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15-5-2007 (Annexure P/1) comes within the purview of frequent transfers as by the eariler order dated 7-3-2007 and prior to that by ordersdgtea 10-11-2004 and 21-4-2005, thepetitioner was transferred from one place to other place. 4) After hearing iearned counse! for the parties, having perused the impugned orderanddocuments appended thereto, it appears t'nat it is not a case of freauent transfer as the petitioner has been assigned responsibilitywithinthe same forest division i.e., Forest Division, Durg. In thls petition the postingof the petitioner was on temporary basis to look after the work of yacant post, consequent to the relieving bf the incumbent at Gurur cirele for attending the training. The petitioner has not questioned the eariisrposting orders passed byihe authorities. 5) The second contention of iearned counsel appearing for petitioner that the impugned order which has been passed during ban period, is noticed to be dismissed on the ground that it is not a transfer, butit is simply a posting within the same division. 6) In view ofthe foregoing, there is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed and is accordinglydismissed, summarily. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge