Dr. M.B.P. Vishwakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5589 Chatt

                                    1


                                                                    NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 486 of 2022

   Dr. M.B.P. Vishwakarma S/o Shri Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma Aged
   About 61 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Veterinary
   Assistant Surgeon, Incharge Veterinary Hospital Ambagarh Chowki,
   Distt Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Age Wrongly Mentioned 62 Years)

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Animal Husbandry
   Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
   Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director Directorate of Veterinary Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Atal
   Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Deputy       Director   Veterinary     Services   Rajnandgaon,    Distt
   Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge

Judgment on Board

07/09/2022

Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant as well as Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 18.08.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5468 of 2022.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging the transfer order dated

01.08.2022 whereby the appellant, who is an Assistant Veterinary

Surgeon, was transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Ambagarh Chowki,

District Rajnandgaon to Veterinary Hospital, Orchha, District

Narayanpur.

4. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to

show that the counsel for the appellant sought liberty to file a

representation before the concerned respondent authorities and

accordingly, prayer was allowed and a direction was issued to the

authorities that in the event the appellant files a representation, same

may be considered and decided in accordance with the posting policy of

the Government.

5. Mr. Sahu submits that the learned Single Judge, while

permitting filing of a representation, ought to have granted stay of the

order impugned.

6. In the appeal, grounds have been taken that the learned Single

Judge did not consider the transfer policy and the merits of the case.

There is no averment in the memo of appeal that the submission as

recorded by the learned Single Judge was not made before the learned

Single Judge or that the appellant had also prayed for stay of the transfer

order till the time the representation is decided. It also does not appear

from the order of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had prayed

for adjudication of the writ petition on merits.

7. Accordingly, we find no justification to entertain this appeal. The

appeal is dismissed.

                      Sd/-                                         Sd/-
              (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                  CHIEF JUSTICE                                 JUDGE




Amit