B EFORE THE STATE ADMNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR (c.G.k arwv '1') /W o 0A¢N° ¢—___/2oo 1 Naresh Das Baghel son of shri Mahadas Bhghel. Assistant Teacher. Posted at Middle School Jhalmala. Balod. District Durg ( C.G.) Versu s 1. State of Chhattisgarh. ‘Ihrough Secretary. School Education Department. Mantralaya. D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) o c o Applicant 2. Director. Public Instructions. cahattisgarh. Pension Bada. Raipur (C.G.). 3. District Education Officer. District Durg (amattisgarh) . n. Non applicants § APPLICATION UBDER SECTION 19 OF THE STATE ADMNISTRATIVE TR: BUNAL ACT 1985. . @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3783 o€ 2005 Petitioner Naresh Das Baghel Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'bie ML Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murihy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondente/state. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 9‘“ day of March, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Middle SchooL Jhalmala. Balod. District — Dur was transferred to Middle School‘ K. Nawagaon. Dondi Lohara, on the same terms and conditions, vide impugned order dated 6.9.2001 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 20.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevaiiing on 13.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the original place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. lt is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particuiar officer/employee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well ’as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved malatide. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above. this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( a sit/- 3 Satish K. Agnihotl‘i Judge r