gm HEW mam «#200 I mm ‘:- W w. figh? 3g 45 mi: aaram mm, WWII Emw Sma? ara‘zmm war SWEET , ‘frrmr marag? E-JP ‘Faw aaraaw: aw'w: 9mm Eta—W a‘m‘a, Fga ‘fm fawn §$ m ma Wing? ENE 2— mar man gmrim$§aragir War warm? giwi- I c. TWA3? norm (Aavaawt) mwa am WW Reg N6 £M a ‘ Rmpua‘ DEM. E r Ema avma q g Wan gawa‘m fawn: w% Ung? Swmama / i/y w N/W’ g O R D E. R ( Passed on this 9‘“ day of March, 2007) Thakur The petiiioner while working as Assismnt Teacher in Higher Secondary School. Sarkanda, District - Biiaspur was transferred to Bhadit Block - Bilha. on the same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure N1). The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunai 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 17.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the originai place of poating. Be that as it may, with the paesage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appiicabie forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the pubiic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on oompiiance of the impugned transfer order. it 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 particular officerlemployee be postedt keeping in \A‘ew public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiatide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. In view of the above this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ' i sw— ii Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 7/é w.P. (S) No. 3792 of 2005‘ Petitioner P. S. Chaturvedi Versus Respondenw State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy. Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Aniu Ahuja. Deputy Govt. .‘vocate for the respondentslState. The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1.