^^ss^ ....-•""y\KJ:vf"" ....•••••" :.Aiw'i f A \ ^'•^ y^o\^.^-!" se^<^.^-; BERORE THE HONBLE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR C.G W.P.No. .......'T?!^5........... 2005 gmuEa 0»» Petitioner .. Nandlal Sahu aged 44 years s/o DukaluRamSahu Assistant grade II Janpad Panchayat Patan Durg VERSUS Resnondent ......................... The State Govt. of C.G. Through the Secretary Panchayat and Samaj Kalyaa REC@VED-COP^ -r^-aofsT^-" CLEREto A, G^^ASPW Vibhag D.K.S.BhawanRaipur(C.G) 2. DeputyDireGtor, I Panchayat and Samaj Kalyan Vibhag Durg . Writ Detition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. HIGH GQURT OF GHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. No.49l5of2005 Petitioner Nandlal Sahu Versus Respondents TheStateGovt.ofChhatb"sgarh& another SB: Hon'ble Mr. JusticeSatishK. Agnihotri,J None appears for the peUtioner. Mr.Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocatefortherespondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 1st day of March, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Grade-ll in Janpad Panchayat, Patan, was transferred toJanpad Panchayat, Dondi on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 31.08.2005 (Annexure P/1) on administrative ground. 2. This Court vide interimorder dated 5.10.2005 directed that the impugned order dated 31.08.2005 in respect of the petitiorier will not be given effect to, till the next date of hearing. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner has continued on the same 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 jnterestand administrativeexigency, without insisting on compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It is well setUed principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a partiGular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and this Court can interfere onfy in the case pf proved malafide, 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 orderas to costs. 6. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No. 3961/2005, appljcation forgrantofinterim relief, stands disposed of. Bablu satishK^ ^udge otr,