Ankita Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1389 of 2019 Ankita Tiwari D/o Shri Surendra Nath Tiwari Aged About 33 Years Presently Working As Sister Tutor At Anm Training Centre, Koriya District - Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Health Services, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer District - Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Nilkusum Tirkey Public Health Tutor, Government Anm Training Centre, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/02/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P1) dated 13/02/2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Sister Tutor, ANM Training Centre, Koriya to District Hospital Baikunthpur.

2. The said order has been issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Koriya, Baikunthpur. In place of the petitioner

respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Sister Tutor who otherwise is not a Sister Tutor but is only a Public Health Tutor posted at the Government Multipurpose Health worker Training Centre, Baikunthpur. Foremost argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted at ANM Training Centre, Koriya by an order passed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30/09/2015. That if the place of posting of the petitioner had to be shifted it could have been done only by the respondent No. 1 and not by CMHO as has been done by the impugned order.

3. Given the limited grievance which the petitioner has raised, let petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondent No. 1 & 2 within a period of 10 days, who in turn shall consider the case of the petitioner on its merits and pass an appropriate order. Meanwhile, the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned, should not be given effect to.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit