G . F • \00 INTHEHIGHGOURTGRJUQfCATURECMHATnSGARH ATilLASRUR W.P.No.^ 2(7 2005 Shri Kashi Prasad Singh, % years, Rresently -Divisional Ronest Officer, Division.Ambikapur, R/o forest Colony Surajpur, Districf - Sarguja(CG) Versus i^e^: Respondents : ^4) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary;For6stDepartment,DKSBhawan, Raipur(C.G.) | /2} The Princjpal Chief Conservator of Forest, RaipuF(CG) ^3) The Conservator of Forest, Ambikapur, Distrct-Surguja(CG) <-4) TheDwisional Rirest Officer,^Sout Surgu}a Dwisjon, Ambikapur (CG) ^ , ''; ^--5) ShriD.P.Pafid6y,PfesentlyfpQsteclasi^e|i!sK Managing DirectorFedeFati6n)^ortHl|SucgUjER Division,Amyikapur (GG) 1 ^'i? ^^^I^ETltlQN^NDER^lG1^226fi27Ql^^^^^^^^^?^^ GONSTITL)-FK3NOFi01A" IW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4921 of 2005 Petitioner S.J. Singh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Mr.Vinay Pandey,Panel lawyerforthe respondents No. 1 to 4/State. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advbcate for the respondent No. 5. ,/n- ~> ORDER (Passed on this 1st dayof Mareh, 2007) 1. The petitioner, white working as Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, in Surajpur, South Surguja Division, Ambikapur, was transferred to Tamore Pingla Century, Ambikapur as Superintendent,within the same district, vide impugned transfer orderdated 29.9.2005 (P/1). 2. This Court, vjde interim order dated 5.10.2005, directedthat the impugnedorder dated 29.9.2005 in respect ofthe peUtioner will not be given effect to, till the next date of hearing. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner has conflnued on thesameplaceofposting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has beeome infruetuous, as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is ho question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberiy to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interestand adminisfrativeexigency, without insisting oncompliance ofthe impugned b-ansfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of iaw that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. ThisCourt has limited jurisdictionto interfere with the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being inconformity w fhe rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to coste, 6. Consequently, M. (W.)P.No. 3967/2005,applicationforgrantofinterim reliefandstay,standsdisposedof. <s^i/ satish K. Agnyiotri judge Bablu —-.J