JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. Heard.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2021 whereby the petitioner who is working as District Project Manager has been transferred from Jabalpur to Jhabua.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contract employee and, therefore, she cannot be transferred and that the transfer in the garb of rationalization cannot be sustained and the transfer order will cause hardship to the petitioner as she is required to look after old ailing parents.

3. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is as per policy and the similar petitions have already been dismissed.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned order of transfer is a general order of transfer whereby several such Project Managers have been transferred. The competency of the authority to pass the impugned transfer order has not been questioned. The order further reflects that the petitioner has been transferred in terms of clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24.02.2020, which permits the tra