;<5' ^^ ^.-<'. 5-> ^^YCB^ LN THE HIGIiCOURT QFJUDICATURE BILASPUR W.P. No. 5'/s3°:3-y2006 L^> PETITIONER : ^ Smt. Snageeta Dhiri, W/o Shri Daya ^ i Shankar Dhiri, Aged about 42 £'''^^> "——-,--a——~»- .-^^^^, \^...--''^e-' ... R/o Bazaar Para, Distt. Bilaspur »s*\ tt' .»** (C.G.) . ^..^'^ ->c\ i-\"' >"^ ^ ..'s' .^".^•^ v\«(?? ..•- \">' •RESPONDENTS "^ ^ ^.\ .u' ^\} < 1 ^ ^ ^ \~1 ^ <*« t' VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, D K S Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.). i"2. The Commissioner, Schedule Caste 8s Schedule Tribe Welfare Departraent, Raipur (C.G.). »'3. Block Education Officer, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) n^ "Si l:k< c& ^ WRLT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE^26 & '227_QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBll.ASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. c R_espondents WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.5182 OF 2006 Smt. Snageeta Dhiri versus Stafe of Chhattisgarh and others Pjesent : Mr. P.S.Koshy.counselforthepetitloner. Mrs, Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the ORDER (Passed on 3rd of October, 2006) I.-- Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Superintendent in the PreWatric Girls Hostel, Kota, District Bilaspur. By order dated 7-7-2006 (Annexure P- 1), service of the petitioner was transferred to Pre-iyiatric Giris Hostei, Pandariya, DistrictKawardha. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner fiied a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4289 of 2008 ^Smt. Snageete Dhiri vs. State of ChhaWsgarh and others). This Court, by order dated 14-8-2006 (Annexurs P-3), permitted the petltioner to make a detailed representation before the competent authorities for decision in accordance with iaw. in the meantime, the impugned transfer order rsmained stayed ti!I the representation was decided. 6 ^^ 3. The State Government, by order dated 5-9-2006 (Annexure P-4), decided the representation of the petitioner in accordance with iaw, as under :- "4.1 3I«tl^Rtftlgy?NT-T ^StRKI'W ^ T^ <ft 3PT^ ^ifir <^ TRW ^BTT'T TR *l4^d 'l^T aft. uiff^ qf^ f^piray '4' ^Tiha t uWfe ?g Wf£i if <^i4'(d aft. 3RT: qsfeff ^, 'i'ail'lldRrt tR^ ^ T^S ^ tKWW Wn-T ^ SRra ^aiMi'dtel f?R^ un-t ^t ^RT cTaf ''SFTtT 'TiT 4.2 a.I^iiiqi^qii g»T 'WIT-nTRor TwKlpfoR .STTEIR TR Kiw TTEK ? SRT: ainrra ^iT -ys q?api f^ ^fttlR^ TR SRK •V^'sn. PT?P1 WRf •TgT t. g^mri^ WIMi'd';"! ?N TR ^ii-1!'dR?T {St^ 4 ^tidS\ oRbddi'^gr 4 •a'a^ <tsRitd iffq ct>4i.ii^ ^ sm ?M^- 4.3 'SVsS wi-3ti W5^' <& uTgf tR; aTSTiH ti?T g^f wji'jfdRd ^an-T TR •;}g ^f^w ©' 4. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 5-9-2006 (Annexure P-4), whereby the representation of the petltioner was rejected. 1 5. have heard iearned counsel for theparties and perused the petition and records appended thereto. It is evident that all the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered and the Stats Goyemment has passed a detaiied order. There is no other infirmity raised by the petitionenn theimpugnedtransfer order dafed 7-7-2006 (Annexure P-1), which can be interfered with by this Court. Thus, the fransfer order being passed in administrative sxigency appears to be just and proper. There is no other ground like mala fide. non- competence of the transferring officer and contrary to statutory rules. 6. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit. As a result, thjs petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gopal ff