I; c---~^' INTHE HIGHCOURTOFJUDlCATUREGHHATTtSGARH ATB1LASPUR ^. . W.P.No^ae^/2Q05 m^s Petitioner gf}??' ^MS^ ••' C;::v- .Y<> \>''' ^y- ^ .^obndents ^" ^^>^1 o.1 c<?^ ^ 1} 2) 3) 4) R.S.Tegar, S/o Late Sftri Kunchi Ram Tegar, Aged about 57 years; Presently working as Sub-Dh/isional Forest Officer, Sub-Division Kelhari, Division-Manendragarh, District - Korea (CG) Permanent R/o Bhartiya Nggar, BilaSpur(CG) Versus State of ChhatBsgarh — Through the Secretary, Forest Department, QKS Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) The Principat Chief Conservator of l:?orest, Raipur(CG) The Conservator of Forest, i Ambifcapur; Disfrict- Sui^uja (CG) Th$Divisional^ForeStQ^i;er,IVIai'ier((:ta9artt,l ;:District-f^a(©(^:'l,:,^'.":':^':.f:.:,-l^ 'eSSS- t^ Sftri: S.O.TWCT^ .;;Divistonar.,fbFest:;i'..©ffiCe,^;SC|y|f||g|^aj Afnbikapur(lnthe<m{iygrie8^Pde|fii|Jg|iji| has been shown as Attasbecl Qffii^Bigii ConservatorofR>rest,Surguja(3Fcle)% i%| WRITPETITIONUNDERARTI©LE226^27 OETHE CQNSTITUnONOFINDIA iWSa 'sss SSfS NKE3 SM D| K; p t ailliirit'.;; •w... —'lkl Thakur Hiet+GOURT OFeHHATTISGARHAT BLASnjR W.P. No.^06cf2005 Petitioner R.S.Tegar Vereus Respondents StriteofCWialBsgarh&othere SB: Hon'bte Mr. JusUce Safish K. Agnihotri, J Shri P. Diwakar, Sentor Advocate vwth Shri P. R. P'atanlrar, Advocate for thepetitioner. Shri Afay Dwivedi. Panel Lawyer for the respondenlsNo. 1 tQ4. Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER ( Passed on fhis 2^h day of Febnaty. 2007) The following order of ttie Court is passwl fcy Satish K. Agnihtrtri, J. 1. The peSSoner virtitteworidng as Sub Divisional Fore^ Offieer in e Sitf> Divisfon Khelhariwas fransferred to Surguja Circto on th®same tem® and conditions vkte impugned transfer order <teted 28S.20 (Annexure P/1). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 5.10^0(» directed tttat the impugned order in r^pect <rf the petitionsr be n<rt giwneffed to till Bie n®(tdateofhearing. 3. Be that as it may, with <he passage of time ttife pettton has become mfruchiousasperkxloftransferistwtapplteaMeforevw.Atfliispotnt <rf fime there is no question to examine ttie vidklBy o{ ttie transfer order. However, the respondents are at Bberty to pass appropriate OTders keeping in VJCTV ttie publfc intei^t and administTErtive ®ugency, withoutinsistingoncomplianceoftheimpugnedaansferoKto. 4. It is well settted principle of law that tran^er is an inddCTt of servtee and it is for ttie emptoyer to declde as to where a parUcutar offleei/emptoyee be posted keeping in view public interest as weU as administrafive ewgency. This Court h^ limttMl jurisdi^on to irterfare in the tran^er matter and this Court can mterfere only in fte case<rf proved malafide, non-competence <rf auttxxUy p^sinfl 8ie tra»refer order and transfer order n^ beh^ in confonnBy wUh tt»erutes and regulafions. 5. In viewofthe above, ttiis petifion stands cBsposed <rf. No ordar »to costs. Sd/- SatisAK. j'udge Sp/BSP^FS-wzoro.