^L BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR O.A. N0. 12002 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Soni LalJain SonofLateC.R. Jain Block Extension Educator P.H.C. Bhanupratappur Distt. Kanker VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Health Services Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Director Health Services D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) ORIGINALAPPLICATION UNDERSECTION 190FTHEM.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT, 1985 HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4504 of 2005 Ftetitioner: Soni Lal Jaio. Versus Respoiidents: of Chhattisgsj'li & aiiother Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. SIiri Maiiish SIiat-ma, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri Dubey, Paiiel law}rer for the Respondents. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for Inter^eB.er, ORAL ORDER ( 19th Jufy, 2006) The followmg order oftlie Court is passed by SC. J. 1. This Original ApplicatioD. before the State Ad?Diiiistrative Triburial Bench at Raipur, the order 21,12,2-001, whereby the. petitloner, who 011 fhe of B]ock Educator et Priiiiary Center -° Bliaiiupratappur, _ District- Kaiiker, was traB^sfeiTed to fhe Primaiy Healtii Center- Orcha, Abujhmad, District- Bastar, '•2e While. adniittbig tlie petition^ flie Tribuual by ite orcler.clatecl 18,1.2002 graiited quo witli regard to tlie posting of fhe petitiouer, as 011 17.1.2002. Leenied coiuisel for the petitioiier that by virtue of the iritermi order the petitiouer is contmiiiiig 011 the place of postmg i,e. Bhanupratappur^ District- Kaiiker. 3, As a offact, the petitioner got t3ie fiiial rcliefby way of order fhe petitioner been on fhe place for r ,---'-""'•c/^ four years. The petitioiier could not coiitinue ar~~oiie place forever. 4, It is weU principle of that transfer is aa iiicicleiit of service it is for fhe em.ployer to clecide as to wliere a particulai' officer/employee be ni view public a.s well a.s exigeiicy, This Court limited juriscliction to iriterfere in fhe matter Court can. oiily ia tlie of proved noii-coiiipeteiice. of aufhority the trao-sfe.r oixler order not be.mg . iii conform.ity with tlie regulations. In the ancl circumstejices of the case, it m not necessaiy to examme valiclity of the oxxler at this stage. However, the respondents/authorities are directed not to insist on compUaiice ofthe inipugned order datecl 21. 12.2001. 5, This petitioii has become mfnictuoiis with fhe of time. AccordHigty fhe is dismissecl as haviiig becom.e iiifrLictuous, However, rcspondeiits/authorities are at Uberty to order for the petitiouer iii fhe public exigeiicy, iii accordsjice wifh law, No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur