← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2817/2016disposed off

Smt. Madhuprema Tirkey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2817 of 2016 Smt. Madhuprema Tirkey W/o Shri Jakharias Tirkey, Aged About 37 Years Designation Lecturer Panchayat Science Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School Mudapar, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, (Chattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chattisgarh)

2. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (Chattisgarh)

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 & 2, on advance copy.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 12/07/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

This petition is directed against order dated 09.03.2016 (Annexure P/2) by which the petitioner's representation against transfer has been rejected.

2.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of representation is bad in law because the petitioner was not given any personal hearing and while rejecting representation, certain stigmatic

observations have been made against the petitioner. 3.

An occasion to decide representation arose on the basis of the judicial order passed by this Court on 27.11.2015 in the writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing legality and correctness of the transfer order. A decision of representation against an order of transfer is not a quasi judicial proceeding. It is merely an administrative matter. Therefore, no hearing is required.

4.

However, the other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves consideration. I find that in the impugned order, certain observations have been made against the petitioner. This could not be made without hearing of the petitioner. It may have deleterious effect on petitioner's service record. Therefore, to that extent, those observations shall be of no consequence. Subject to the aforesaid observation, no other relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha