Smt. Om Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1387 of 2015 • Smt. Om Sahu W/o Ram Kumar Sahu, Age around 30 years, Presently Posted As Female Multipurpose Health Worker/ ANM, At Primary Health Centre Bhilaibazar, Block Katghora, District Korba, R/O Village Bhatora, Tahsil Katghora, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Block Medical Officer, Block Katghora, District Korba

5. Smt. Pratibha Masih, Presently Posted As Female Multi-Purpose Health Worker, At Sub-Health Centre Raliya, Block Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/04/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2015, whereby the petitioner, who is working as multi-purpose health worker (female) has been posted, due to implementation of rationalization scheme, from Primary

Health Centre, Bhilaibazar to Sub-Health Centre, Raliya.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Smt. Pratibha Masih, respondent No.5, who is presently working at Raliya, is brought to Bhilaibazar, therefore, it is not a case of rationalization, but is a case of transfer and as a matter of fact, there is no need for disturbing posting of the petitioner and respondent No.5.

3. When the Government undertakes rationalization of employees and in that course it passes orders of posting, the said rationalization includes posting as well as transfer, because in a scheme of rationalization various aspects like need of the person, availability of work, suitability of the person in a particular posting etc. is taken care of. In that sense posting/rationalization is not by itself a transfer, but it includes an element of transfer also. The ordinary tenets of transfer appears to be included in rationalization, but the same is not only a transfer but is a posting depending upon various factors. It is not in the domain of the writ Court to decide or to embark upon judicial review to assess the legality of the exercises undertaken by the Government keeping in view its own administrative interest and the aspiration of the local populace.

4. The petitioner has not placed before this Court any such facts by which it can be demonstrated that subject rationalization is in violation of any statutory provisions or is otherwise mala fide in nature. The place where the petitioner is posted is hardly at a distance of less than 25 km.

5. For the foregoing, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, however, this would not preclude the petitioner from preferring representation raising grounds of personal inconvenience in complying the order. If such representation is filed, the same shall be

disposed of at the earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of representation.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. JUDGE ashu