m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHAUSGARH AT B;LASUB. WRIT PETITION No. 438 7 OF 2004. PETITTIONER. \/MUKESH KUMAR SAXENA, S/O LATE B.S. SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O QTR. NO. g~5, IRRIGATION COLONY, RAIPUR ROAD, BILASPUR. C.G. STATE. VERSUS 1). STATE OF CHHATISGARH THRU SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF C.G. DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2) CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., HASDEO KACHAR PROEJCT, BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF w INDIA FOR IsSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITs I ORDERS I DIRECTIONIS), ETC. HIGH COURT GF CHHAT‘HSGARH AT BILASPUR r SINGLE EENCH : HéN‘EwR. $AT‘ISH K. AGNIHGTRé. J‘ RIT PETH‘DN NO.4987 OF 2904 W Petition er : Mukesh Kumar Saxena Versus Resoondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another Present : Mr. KRNair, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Government Advocate fer the Siateirespondem‘s. oncER (Passed an 22‘“ Day or February, 2007) The petitioner, whiie working as Assistant Grade-ii in the office of the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachhar Division of the Water Resources Department at Bitaspughas been transferred to the Water Conservation Division of the same department at Biiaspur, vide order dated 18-1 0-2004 (P-1 ). 2. M No stay order was granted by this Court in this matter. The transfer order must have been executed by the respondents. 3. Be that as. it may, with the passage 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 vaiidity of the ‘. impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to 2E0 pass appropriate orde:s keeping in view the pubiic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the imbuqned transfer order. 4. it is weil settled principle of iaw that transfer is an incident cf service and it is for the empioyer to decided as to where a particular ofticer/empioyee be posted keeping in View pubiic interest as we“ 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 maia dde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and reduiations. 5. in view of the above! the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. n Sd/- ‘ Samh K. Agnihouj Judge l E is