High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1771/2019dismissed

Shankar Lal Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-03-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1771 of 2019 Shankar Lal Sinha S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sinha Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Tahsildar At Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

3. Amit Kumar Shrivastava Tahsildar Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/03/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 05.03.2019, whereby the petitioner, who is working as a Tahsildar, has been posted from Tahsil Bilaigarh to Tahsil Kasdol.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent change of postings, in as much as, in the last about 2-3 years, he has been shifted for about 5-6 times within the same district and thereby the petitioner has been put to frequent transfers.

-23. The further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 who has come on transfer from Balrampur to district BalodabazarBhatapara.

4. Perusal of the record would show that the contentions of the petitioner are not in dispute, so far as the frequent change of posting is concerned, however as far as the interference by this Court is concerned, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground that the distance between presence place of posting of the petitioner i.e. Bilaigarh and the place, where he is being shifted i.e. Kasdol is too short a distance calling for an interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising the power of judicial review.

5. The writ petition accordingly fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved