Smt.Savita Kosarkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1050471
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-18-2012
AppellantSmt.Savita Kosarkar
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
smt. savita kosarkar versus state & ors.w.p.no.15377/2012 18/09/2012 shri v.d.s.chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. petitioner is working as an anm and is posted in sub-health centre, wara, rampyali district-balaghat. vide order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner was transferred to sub-health centre, dogariya birs.balaghat and, therefore, challenging the transfer on various grounds, petitioner approached this court in w.p.no.11872/2012 and this court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the state found that the transfer is not in violation of any statutory rule not is any malafide made out and, therefore, refused to interfere into the matter. however, respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. in pursuance to the order passed on 9.8.2012 in the earlier writ petition, representation is rejected and, therefore, petitioner is again before this court. petitioner has submitted the representation pointing out various personal inconveniences and the state government having considered and rejected the representation, not no further indulgence into the matter is called for particularly when in the earlier writ petition, this court found no case made out for interference. accordingly, finding no grounds to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge nd
Judgment:

Smt.

Savita Kosarkar versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15377/2012 18/09/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner is working as an ANM and is posted in Sub-Health Centre, Wara, Rampyali District-Balaghat.

Vide order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner was transferred to Sub-Health Centre, Dogariya BiRs.Balaghat and, therefore, challenging the transfer on various grounds, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.11872/2012 and this Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State found that the transfer is not in violation of any statutory rule not is any malafide made out and, therefore, refused to interfere into the matter.

However, respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.

In pursuance to the order passed on 9.8.2012 in the earlier writ petition, representation is rejected and, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court.

Petitioner has submitted the representation pointing out various personal inconveniences and the State Government having considered and rejected the representation, not no further indulgence into the matter is called for particularly when in the earlier writ petition, this Court found no case made out for interference.

Accordingly, finding no grounds to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd