IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.11820 of 2002 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2010 DR. SHIV KARAN SINGH KAHLON ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Kuthuiala, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for hearing today itself. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P-5). The effect of order (Annexure P-5) is that petitioner-Dr.Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon has been transferred. When the matter was initially heard on 31.7.2002, interim direction was issued that the petitioner would be allowed to remain at Amritsar. Civil Writ Petition No.11820 of 2002 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that eight years have passed. The order of transfer does not adversely affect the service conditions of the petitioner. The Government has also changed and, therefore, the allegation of malafide is also rendered dehors the controversy. I have considered the issue. The petitioner has taken the benefit of interim order passed on 31.7.2002 till date. Ordinarily, transfer is effected after three years of stay at a particular station. Admittedly, the transfer of the petitioner would not change the conditions of service of the petitioner. There is no allegation that the order of transfer has been passed by an authority not competent to do so. In view of the efflux of time, in my considered opinion, this petition has outlived its life. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. August 4, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?