S.K. Deshpande v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2575 of 2018 S.K. Deshpande S/o Shri G.S. Deshpande, Aged About 60 Years R/o Parras Para, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering (E/m), Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. D.M. Shrivastava, Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering (E And M), Sub Division Dantewada, District Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

4. The Transfer Examination Committee, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Coordinator, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Under Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Public Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Goutam Khetrapal Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 26/03/2018 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition challenging transfer order on various grounds particularly on the ground that the petitioner is more than 55 years of age and according to policy

-2dated 3.6.2015, those who have completed 55 years of age may be considered for posting in a non-core schedule area. In addition, certain personal difficulties were also ventilated. It is submitted that the ground which were raised by the petitioner have not received due consideration and representation has been rejected.

2. I find that in view of non-consideration of petitioner's case on the ground of his age, this Court had directed the respondents to examine the matter. This Court had also noted that the petitioner's wife is posted in a nearby place where he was posted.

3. It appears that the authority have considered and rejected petitioner's representation. In the absence of there being any illegality or malafide, this Court cannot issue any further direction in the matter. Therefore, no interference is called for. However, it will always be open for the petitioner to pray for change/modification of posting before the authority as and when the transfer seasons become due and the petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting under the forthcoming transfer policy.

4. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/---- -- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen